Royal Mail: Performance

David Reed Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the performance of Royal Mail.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I want to ask everyone to go along with me for a few seconds by closing their eyes and visualising what the Royal Mail means to them. I picture the intrepid and hardy postie battling through snow, hills, rain and fog to ensure that our post is delivered. I picture the regular encounters with my postie wherever I have lived, and the kind, warm and friendly conversations we have had on the doorstep. Members will be happy to know that I am not going to go round the room asking what they visualised, but I imagine it was fairly similar to what I just described.

If there was one word to sum it all up, it would be “trust”—trust in the Royal Mail service and in an institution that has been a constant in British life for over 500 years. But we all know that that trust is waning. We feel it ourselves, and we hear it from our constituents, families and friends. The institution that so many of us have known, valued and trusted is changing, and something must be done by us in this House to stop the decline.

Before I turn to some of the issues and recommendations, I want to address the elephant in the room: Royal Mail is facing significant external pressures—we all know that. Modern technology such as email and online messaging has gradually sidelined traditional letter mail. Royal Mail itself often says that it used to be a letters organisation that delivered parcels, and now it is a parcels organisation that still delivers letters. This challenge is not unique to the United Kingdom. Our friends in Denmark, for example, saw their state postal operator, PostNord, deliver its final traditional letter in December 2025, ending more than 400 years of national letter delivery. From 2026 onwards, PostNord will focus solely on parcel delivery, after letter volumes fell by around 90% since 2000. We have faced a similar trend here in the UK.

For all of us here, that raises a broader question for our country: in this increasingly digital world, do we still value physical letters? My answer—I imagine it is the same as that of everyone else here today—is a resounding yes. There is something secure about a letter passing through trusted hands on its journey to its destination. As we all know, digital systems can fail or be hacked or manipulated. At a time of growing international uncertainty and environmental disruption, it is imperative that we maintain a strong and resilient network of physical mail delivery. In this new era, with Royal Mail now operating as a privately owned company with overseas ownership, we must work with the company to ensure that the universal service obligation is fit for purpose and, crucially—this is the key point—understood by the British public.

I am sure this will come up in many Members’ speeches, but the failure to meet delivery targets is a significant problem. Under the current USO, Royal Mail is required to deliver 93% of first-class letters the next working day and 98.5% of second-class letters within three working days.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on securing the debate. The timelines he is outlining have not been met, but that has coincided with a remarkable increase in the cost, particularly of first-class stamps, in the past five years. Does he agree that that is what drives the downward trend in the community’s trust in Royal Mail to deliver, and it needs to modernise and be more efficient?

[David Reed]

I have been looking at the numbers over the last few years, and Royal Mail has gone from significant losses of about £400 million three years ago, to £200 million losses, to making a £14 million profit last year. Because it is a privately owned company—we will come on to that—it has cut a lot of fat away, but it has also cut away muscle. Prices have increased, but the service has gone down. That is completely unacceptable, and it is probably the reason why we are all here today.

[Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)]

I thank the hon. Member for securing this debate. A recent Gallup meta-analysis of about 1.8 million employers found that a meaningful increase in employees’ wellbeing leads on average to a 10% increase in productivity. In the light of that evidence, does he agree that it would be beneficial for the chief executive of Royal Mail to meet urgently with the Communication Workers Union to ensure that existing agreements are honoured and that the wellbeing of the workforce is genuinely prioritised?

[David Reed]

That is a serious point. We can talk about the Royal Mail service for our constituents, but the posties themselves are experiencing significant trouble at the moment. I am sure we have all heard about it in our inboxes recently. I will come to the issue later in my speech, and I am sure other Members will raise it, but I do agree with the hon. Member.

Royal Mail has failed to meet both those delivery targets for three consecutive years, and I have very little confidence in when a letter would arrive if I sent one today. If anyone could give me an insight into that, I would be very happy to hear it. Furthermore, Royal Mail offers economy access mail, a non-priority service for bulk non-time-critical letters that provides savings compared with first and second-class services. It typically delivers within four working days, often arriving alongside other post, but it can take up to five days or more. The fact that companies or organisations such as banks and the NHS use that product helps to explain the correspondence in our inboxes and the conversations we have in our constituencies, in which people ask why their post seems to disappear for weeks only to arrive all at once. That crucial point has not been communicated to the public in any meaningful way.

Set against the backdrop that competitors can offer reliable same-day or next-day parcel delivery, it is easy to understand why public confidence in Royal Mail has declined. At the same time, as the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton) alluded to, our local posties are under significant pressure, working in an increasingly demanding environment in what I am sure can feel to them like a thankless job. Members will, like me, have received emails from local postal workers asking for support and for their concerns to be heard. It is right that we give them a voice in this conversation.

I have no doubt that Members will set out a wide range of issues that they and their constituents have experienced. I want to leave ample time for those contributions, but I do want to share one example of poor delivery service that I have experienced with Royal Mail. It reflects what many of my constituents have been dealing with for some time; it is clear that the problems are not isolated, but getting a straight answer about them is far harder than it should be. In my case, public money was involved: every Member knows that they can produce a non-partisan, publicly funded annual report to communicate with constituents, yet in parts of my constituency that report simply was not delivered. I pressed Royal Mail on what went wrong and did not receive a proper answer. I am still waiting to receive one. When public money is used, there should be clear accountability, but that has not happened here.

The same applies to those paying out of their own pockets. Our constituents are paying increasing amounts for stamps and not getting the service they have paid for. Again, there is little accountability. I am sure we will hear similar experiences from colleagues today. If Royal Mail cannot provide an answer to a Member of Parliament about delivery failures—I gave it ample opportunity to do so, on many occasions—it raises serious questions about what an ordinary member of the public can expect to experience when they ask the same questions.

This is the United Kingdom, not Russia or North Korea. When people pay for a service, they rightly expect it to be delivered well. When it is not, they expect, at the very least, a clear explanation and reassurance that the problem will not happen again.

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I send my commiserations to the hon. Member’s constituents for not receiving his newsletter. On a wider point, I have visited the hard-working postal workers at the Garforth and Seacroft delivery offices in in my constituency and, as he says, they work hard and take pride in their work. Does he agree that the fault does not lie with them? There is a toxic culture at the top of Royal Mail. It needs to work with the Communication Workers Union and the Government to sort things out and protect the universal service obligation.

[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.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[David Reed]

I thank the Speaker’s Office for granting this important and timely debate. Most importantly, I thank right hon. and hon. Members for turning up this morning and making their constituent’s voices heard.

A number of wide-ranging issues have been brought forward. It has been a productive debate, and it is clear that we all want to retain a letter postal delivery service in the UK. However, as many Members have said, there are structural issues across the service, and we are going through a period of unprecedented technological change. Those changes are affecting people up and down the country. People are not receiving post such as NHS letters or important legal documents. These issues are affecting posties’ morale, they are affecting recruitment and retention, and they are affecting our democracy and the use of public money.

I thank the Minister for his speech and the points that he raised. I know that he and his team are working very hard with the Secretary of State to make Royal Mail accountable for a lot of those issues. I hope that the Business and Trade Committee can bring forward an inquiry to look into this issue in a granular way and report those findings back to the House. Looking across Westminster Hall today, it is clear that there is cross-party support to improve the situation, and this has been a productive conversation.

I say to Royal Mail, “We are getting on the job; we are going to improve this service, and we will enforce the USO and make sure that it is fit for purpose, because we all deserve this service that we are paying for.” I look forward to working with colleagues across the House to make sure that that happens.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the performance of Royal Mail.

Employment Rights Bill

David Reed Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

When I look to the other House, across the political divide I see captains of industry—people who have led businesses small and large. Does the hon. Member see any merit in their arguments?

[Mark Sewards]

We will always pay attention to the arguments made in the other place, but I place more credence on the arguments made by life peers—people who have been appointed because of their expertise and not because of the family they were born into. However, I appreciate that that point has been well made, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will move on.

Along with the fact that the Government have already compromised in good faith on the Bill with trade unions and businesses, and that those businesses and their representative organisations have welcomed what we have put in the Bill and called on us to pass it today, we were elected on a promise to get this Bill passed into law. Fire and rehire must be banned. Exploitative zero-hours contracts must be ruled out. Day one rights for parental and bereavement leave must be rolled out, and sick pay must be improved. Whichever way the House votes on these amendments today, I implore the hereditary peers in the other place to do the right thing, get out of the way, let this Bill pass and make work pay.

Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill

David Reed Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I thank colleagues for everything that they have had to say. I am not sure whether it was Reagan or Bush, but one of them went to France and said that the trouble with the French economy was that there was no French word for “entrepreneur”. It was repeated by a Conservative Secretary of State for Wales, who went to Wales and said that there is no word in Welsh for “entrepreneur”—that was a bit ironic.

I will try to do something extraordinary, Madam Deputy Speaker, by answering the questions that have been put to the Government. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I don’t think it will catch on. I will start with the questions put by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin). Her first question was about whether I can guarantee that no commercial finance will ever be used where UKEF finance is involved. The strict answer to that is no. However, UKEF’s mission is

“to ensure that no viable UK export should fail for lack of finance or insurance from the private sector.”

My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) made the key point about cohering power. That is precisely what UKEF is able to provide. Sometimes, particularly under export development guarantees, UKEF funding can help to extend capacity or terms—that is an important part of what it does. It is not that there will never, ever be commercial finance and UKEF funding, but obviously we are not trying to supplant commercial funding. We are also aware, of course, that financial services are one of the key things that we do around the world. We are trying to shift our FTAs towards dealing not just with goods but with services, because that is where some of the added value is for the UK.

Several hon. Members have asked about regional disparities. Those are one of the key things we have charged UKEF with, and I know that it is keen to address them. I have a long list in my briefing notes of different parts of the country in which UKEF funding has been supportive or where there have been grants, but I will not lay them all out now.

The shadow Minister asked about new markets. That is often precisely what we are looking for: new markets for individual exporters and new markets for the UK in general. One area in which we have set aside money was specifically in relation to Ukraine, where the reconstruction will be one of the most important things for UK businesses to be involved in over future years. It will be difficult to get the insurance necessary to be able to provide that simply on the open market, which is why UKEF funding is particularly important.

The shadow Minister said that we should not export to companies that could do us harm. She is absolutely right about the side-stepping of sanctions on Russia. We have frequent discussions about that, and UKEF is particularly keen on carrying out due diligence on it. It is why we must constantly revise how we implement our sanctions regime, to ensure that it is doing damage to the Russian Federation’s economic advances.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

Yes, but I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman was here for the rest of the debate. [Interruption.] Oh, he was sitting on the Front Bench—I do apologise.

[David Reed]

I thank the Minister. Just on a point of clarification—I am sure that this will be hammered out in Committee—we have heard about the assistance that the Government have given over the past 15 months to UK Steel, Jaguar Land Rover and others, but it is important to talk about the significant cyber element. Jaguar Land Rover was hit by a big cyber-attack, and we saw a step change when the Government stepped in and essentially made British taxpayers the insurance company. Does the Minister see any risk in the Bill, and what message does it send to adversaries such as Russia, which he just mentioned?

[Chris Bryant]

On cyber, financing and JLR, I might have to correct myself in writing to the hon. Gentleman if I get what I say wrong, but as far as I am aware, I am not sure that JLR has drawn down any of the finances from UKEF that we made available. We thought it was important to ensure that the guarantee was there so that the company was able to proceed. That would be of assistance not only to JLR, but to the extended supply chain, much of which needed to deliver precisely on time, because of the way the automative industry now works, and they did not have large stocks of things that they were keeping against the day when they might be called up by JLR.

We certainly do not want to be the insurer of last resort for everybody who gets into a cyber-security problem. That is why the Government have a cyber-strategy, and we are keen to ensure that businesses take that part of their responsibility seriously. We have seen the dramatic effects that it can have on the UK economy when that goes wrong; this is a serious point. I have seen no evidence that what happened at JLR was specifically related to Russia, but we must maintain vigilance on all these matters.

The shadow Minister’s final question—I am not leaving any of them out—was about how we make sure that posts know about UKEF. We have heard already from two of our trade envoys that posts are extremely well aware of the existence of UKEF, and of how completely transformative that can be when a business is seeking to expand into a particular market. I would say that the problem is that sometimes not enough businesses in the UK are aware of UKEF, which is one of the things I have been talking through with UKEF senior management.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) has been doing a magnificent job, because I have seen video footage of him on the “News at 10” in Togo, speaking in French. We are glad that we have such a linguist in our team, and he is right to raise some of the issues in relation to the EU. We want frictionless trade. That is what we were promised, and we are going to try to achieve it as far as we possibly can. Sometimes that will mean that we align as much as possible with the European Union, rather than diverge for the sake of divergence. Of course it means that we need to get more mutual recognition agreements in place. There is a series of industries where I would like to achieve that, not least architecture.

The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) gave the traditional single transferable EU speech from the Liberal Democrats. I agree with large chunks of what he was saying, but not with his final premise. As I say, within the parameters of what we have, we want to deliver frictionless trade as much as possible. Everybody in my Department laughs at me, but I often refer to floristry. There are florists in every constituency in this land, and if it costs more to bring flowers in from Europe than it did in the past, that is a problem for lots of small family businesses up and down the land. That is why sorting out sanitary and phytosanitary measures over the next few months is an important priority for the Government. He asked whether the target of 1,000 SMEs is ours or that of the previous Government—it is our target as well. We want to be ambitious about that.

The hon. Gentleman asked about spending decisions and accountability. If only he knew somebody on the Business and Trade Committee to whom he could talk about questions of UKEF. Oh no, he’s on it—I’d completely forgotten, Madam Deputy Speaker! I am sure there are plenty of means for him, but I gently say to him that in my experience, the whole system of accountability of expenditure in the House is pretty shabby. It is not my job to write how we should change that in the future, but he might come up with some suggestions and put them to others.

My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer) said that I had not aged a day since I was last a Minister under Queen Victoria, but I think he inadvertently misled the House; I hope at some time that he will be able to correct the record. He is absolutely right about arbitrary figures. There are arbitrary figures, and previous Acts of Parliament did not allow us to amend them to update them sufficiently in line with inflation—we need this primary legislation to do that.

My hon. Friend is also right about the steel industry. I assure him that our steel strategy will come out in the new year. It will be very clear about how important we think the steel industry is to the UK, and about having a sovereign capacity in the UK for a variety of different forms of steel manufacture. As I told the House last Thursday, I was in Brussels last Wednesday to meet Commissioner Šefčovič to talk about the EU steel safeguards, and to make sure it is understood that we are not the problem for the EU and the EU is not the problem for us, so we ought to be able to come to some agreement in that space. We know that our steel safeguard runs out at the end of June. We need to make sure that we have adequate measures in place thereafter, and we will do so.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) talked about the importance of exports, in particular for businesses in his own region. To give cite just one statistic, UKEF provided a £590 million loan for SeAH Wind UK, which is building an offshore wind factory in Teesside. It will create 750 jobs by 2027 and will assist the UK steel industry, so my hon. Friend is absolutely right and I agree with him.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead, who is another of our magnificent trade envoys, asked more questions than the shadow Minister—I am not sure whether he is auditioning for some other post. He is absolutely right about the importance of our critical minerals strategy. Our relationship with Africa will be essential to deliver on that; other countries are seeking to make inroads there, and we cannot leave that be. He asked how the updated UKEF strategy fitted with what we are doing today. Well, the new strategy simply cannot exist without the extension of the financial provisions that we are introducing through the Bill.

My hon. Friend also talked about the cohering power, which is very important. He said that I could read his views—I know can, because he gave me a letter only 10 days ago, which I have read and officials in the Department are reading as well. I am enormously grateful to our trade envoys, in particular those who provide clear reports when they come back from visits about the things that we have achieved. They are achieving those things as part of the UK team. In the new year, I want to vitalise the whole House so that all Members, who often know the businesses in their communities better than anybody else—certainly better than any Government Department—bring people to us who might be thinking about exporting in the future, so that we can strengthen that opportunity.

This Bill is about enabling Scottish indie acts like corto.alto and Young Fathers, and Wales’s the Bug Club, to tour the world. It is about funding low-carbon hydrogen production. It is about helping Superior Wellness to sell hot tubs and spas around the world. It is about enabling 3TOP Aviation to expand its sustainable aircraft services into new markets. It is about helping SRT Marine Systems to sell its maritime surveillance in Indonesia and Kuwait. It is about enabling UK businesses to get contracts to help build the new Dubai airport. It is about enabling BioNTech to open two new research and development hubs. It is about helping Kindeva in Loughborough and Clitheroe to develop new respiratory inhalers. It is about enabling a new multibillion-pound car battery factory, creating 4,000 jobs. It is about Scotch whisky and salmon, and Welsh whisky; aircraft engines and wings; life sciences and advanced manufacturing. It is about jobs and our prosperity, so I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members will support the Bill tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill:

Committal

(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Proceedings in Committee, on Consideration and on Third Reading

(2) Proceedings in Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement.

(3) Any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of proceedings in Committee of the whole House.

(4) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading.

Other proceedings

(5) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Jake Richards.)

Question put and agreed to.

Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill (Money)

King’s recommendation signified.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),

That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under or by virtue of the Industrial Development Act 1982 or the Export and Investment Guarantees Act 1991 out of money so provided.—(Jake Richards.)

Question put and agreed to.

UK Modern Industrial Strategy

David Reed Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am getting the impression that you would like more brevity from the Front Bench, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will just say that the skills packages will put more funding into courses, and the flexibilities required on those courses that matter, with more capital funding for technical excellence colleges, while ensuring that that is available to every part of the UK.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

I was glad to hear defence running through the Business Secretary’s statement. Will he tell us how much equity the authors of the strategic defence review had in the compilation of the UK modern industrial strategy?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I very much welcome that question. The Ministry of Defence has been a partner in the defence industrial strategy, which mirrors and is closely aligned with, as one would expect, the strategic defence review and the big increase in spending under this Government.

British Steel

David Reed Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Jones]

I have met representatives from Union Electric Steel—everyone still calls it Davy Roll. The supply chain is incredibly important, and we are looking at it in our plan for steel. However, the investments made across Government more broadly over the years show that that supply chain, in whichever area of manufacturing it is found, has not been protected. The Ministry of Defence is keen to secure the supply chain in the UK for the investment that we are putting into defence, whether in aerospace, advanced manufacturing or space. We need to build supply chain capacity here in the UK because the world has changed and we have different priorities now, and my hon. Friend is right to raise that.

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

There is consensus across this House that producing steel in the UK is completely necessary—that is undeniable. However, to produce steel we need coking coal. The US has given us a supply line for the next couple of weeks to keep our blast furnaces alive, and I know that the Minister is speaking to Australia and Sweden as well, but we need the ability to produce coking coal, so will the Minister please breathe fire into producing coking coal here in the UK?

[Sarah Jones]

I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to the situation at Whitehaven. As I have already said, British Streel told us directly that it could not use that coal because of the sulphur content and working coke ovens are needed to—

Oral Answers to Questions

David Reed Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)]

15. What steps he is taking to support the hospitality industry.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Gareth Thomas)]

We are creating a fairer business rates system, reducing alcohol duty on qualifying draught products, and our forthcoming small business strategy will set out our plan to further support small businesses on the high street and beyond. In addition, through the Hospitality Sector Council, we are addressing, with business, strategic issues related to high street regeneration, skills, sustainability and productivity, and we have recently saved the pint.

[Gareth Thomas]

Unusually for the Conservative party, the right hon. Gentleman has made an extremely generous offer. I am almost as tempted by that as by the offer from my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster Central (Sally Jameson) to visit Doncaster. I am happy to look at the issue he raises and I will write to him with more details.

[David Reed]

The Crusty Cob bakery has been a constant in east Devon for the past 55 years, but last week the family-run business closed the doors on all nine of its shops, making over 100 local people redundant. The owners stated a panoply of issues, from manufacturing costs to reduced high street footfall and energy prices, but the kicker is the decision that this Business Secretary’s party has made to slam companies with increases to the national living wage and employer national insurance contributions. The effects of this Labour Government’s decisions are setting in and literally destroying working family businesses. Will the Business Secretary and the Minister please give a message to the Crusty Cob team who have just lost their jobs?

[Gareth Thomas]

I understand that this will be an extremely worrying time for employees of the Crusty Cob and their families. I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that we are offering a 40% discount to retail, hospitality and leisure properties as part of our business rates package. We are going to reform business rates more substantially, with a permanently lower multiplier in 2026 that, while it clearly will not help the Crusty Cob and its employees, will help other businesses on the high street.

I am slightly surprised that the hon. Gentleman should be so opposed to an increase in the living wage—I do not know whether that is his party’s policy. I also gently remind him of the data from the Office for National Statistics, which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out, showing more people in jobs this year compared with last year.