(6 days, 21 hours ago)
Commons Chamber
Dave Robertson
I will make some progress.
Royal Mail needs to own the true scale of the problem and the genuinely felt anger—that is essential. I look forward to discussing this with the Royal Mail CEO when he meets Labour MPs in Parliament next month. Labour Members do not want to stand up in this Chamber and attack Royal Mail, and we are certainly not attacking postal workers.
We recognise the scale of the challenge facing the industry. The number of letters sent in the UK has halved since the company was privatised, while the number of parcels has risen dramatically, fuelled in many cases by the growth in online shopping. Virtually all the parcel companies competing with Royal Mail, and oftentimes using its network, use a bogus self-employment model for their workers. That means Royal Mail is competing in a market where it has a fundamental disadvantage, and we should not want to encourage the model that these parcel companies are using—it is bad for workers, consumers and the taxpayer. Too many parcel companies pay a pittance for an unmanageable workload, exhausting drivers who cannot provide a quality service to customers as they race to complete rounds that are frankly impossible, and the public purse is ripped off in the process. While Royal Mail pays £650 million a year in national insurance contributions, many of these companies do not pay a penny.
The Government are now consulting on upgrading the rights of these parcel delivery drivers, and it is a start, but we need to go further. We need true parity between Royal Mail and its competitors, a level playing field where every company pays a fair price if it chooses to use the Royal Mail network. We need Royal Mail to take a long-term view of its workforce. New entrants get far worse terms, and that is fuelling a retention crisis with a staggering 400 posties leaving the company every week. It may help pinch a few pennies now, but if Royal Mail cannot keep its hard-working staff, the business is destined to fail.
I am sorry to say that we need to look again at the delivery model. Royal Mail is currently rolling out DM26, as it calls it, but our posties tell us the process is already chaotic, the workload is unmanageable and it is not a long-term solution. We need to heed the recommendation of the Business and Trade Committee to look at giving Ofcom stronger powers to regulate Royal Mail. It concerns me that the regulator has no solution beyond more fines for Royal Mail, which are clearly not working. We need to build on the Government’s “golden share” in Royal Mail and think about an ownership model for the future, with the voices of customers and workers right at its heart.
Hannah Spencer (Gorton and Denton) (Green)
Last Friday, I spent the morning with the brilliant, dedicated postal workers at my local delivery office in Denton. Yet people across the constituency regularly tell me they are not receiving post, despite the staff clearly doing everything they can to keep the service going under immense pressure. Does the hon. Member agree that the privatisation of Royal Mail has clearly failed and that the Government must take urgent action to restore a reliable postal service that also treats workers fairly?
Dave Robertson
The hon. Member makes an important point. As we have heard from many Members today, it is not the posties; it is the system that they are being asked to work in. We need to do a number of things; there is no single answer that will solve this. We need a suite of different responses that lead to a proper outcome.
We need to think about bringing Royal Mail and the Post Office back together and look creatively at opportunities for profit, such as Post Office banking hubs. We need to look at the pay and bonuses of Royal Mail’s senior leadership. We are already doing that with the water companies; I do not see why it would be inappropriate in this case. When a private company delivers a public service, it must be held to the highest standards. Just like with those water companies, we cannot see bosses’ pay balloon while workers struggle and customers are let down.
I am not arrogant enough to stand here and say that I have all the answers. These ideas are all born out of consultation with organisations across the sector, and that is why it is so important that we get all the parties around the table to share those ideas so we can turn them into action. Two weeks ago, the Communication Workers Union wrote to the Secretary of State calling on him to hold an emergency summit to discuss Royal Mail’s future. I am glad to hear that the meeting will go ahead, and I ask the Minister that my hon. Friends the Members for Redditch and for Corby and East Northamptonshire and I are included in those discussions. Back-Bench MPs and our constituents must have a voice in them.
Royal Mail was founded over 500 years ago. It is a great British icon and an essential public service. We cannot and must not be the generation of politicians who allow it to fail.
(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberThe Lib Dem spokesperson raises a few issues, but I would say first that doing a job like this, or any job in government, means acknowledging the trade-offs. The simple truth is that the things we will be talking about during this session and that everyone in the House wants to see funded were not funded in the plans that we inherited. Yes, it is always difficult to raise the tax burden on anyone in the UK, but priorities promised to the British people—for this successor Department, the money for the Port Talbot steelworks transformation and the compensation for the post office sub-postmasters—were not funded, so the Chancellor at the time did have to raise or find the money to fulfil the existing pledges that had been made.
However, I promise the hon. Member that the aggregate impact or the balance for business—whether it is on employment rights or on taxation—is something this Department always fights very hard for in Government, because we are aware that the only way to fulfil the true ambitions of the British people is with an economy that is performing strongly, employing more people, and giving them hope and opportunity for the future. I do believe that this new Department, with the extra things that have come into it, has a genuinely exciting opportunity to bring a more coherent story to these interventions from Government, and that is the best way to a stronger economy.
Hannah Spencer (Gorton and Denton) (Green)
I welcome this question from my constituency neighbour, and I am grateful to her for raising it. The Prime Minister and I have been clear that Jodrell Bank has a secure future. Just to be clear with the House about what is happening, the primary radio astronomy project will move from the e-MERLIN radio telescope to the Square Kilometre Array observatory in March 2028. That was a science-based decision, but we are exploring the long-term options for the sustainability of Jodrell Bank.
Hannah Spencer
Funding for the e-MERLIN radio telescope network is due to end in 2028, putting Jodrell Bank’s future at risk. People across Gorton and Denton have made clear to me the vital role the observatory plays in opening science up to people of all ages. Many of us went there on school trips as kids. The Prime Minister assured us that his Government will find a funding solution, so will the Secretary of State explain how the Government intend to honour that heartfelt commitment and secure Jodrell Bank’s long-term future as an active sovereign scientific facility?
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this issue. I recognise the strength of feeling that she talked about in her question. She will know that, on a clear day, you can see Jodrell Bank from Matley Lane in Tameside and it is a wonderful sight. It is important, given that we have a very significant research and development budget in the UK, that scientific decisions are made on the basis of the science, but that still does not mean there is no future for Jodrell Bank as an asset. That is consistent with making sure that we are making science-based decisions on the prioritisation of that funding. I met the University of Manchester just a few days ago on this issue, and the local MPs for the area have been incredibly supportive in finding a solution. I hope to have more to say on that soon.
(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberI am grateful for the protestations from the Front Bench.
Those jobs were also crucial in starting to form my politics. In both settings, I was incredibly lucky to work with some fantastic colleagues. Not only did my clumsiness—from spilled buckets to broken bottles in the aisles—mean that I often relied on their generosity and patience with my ineptitude, but they gave me a window into lives that were very different from mine to date. There were similarities between those two jobs. Both sets of people worked in industries in which the minimum wage had been crucial to driving up their security and sense of prosperity. They were grateful for that, and as a result there was a great deal of support for the Labour Government at the time.
However, there was one crucial difference. At the Co-op, those with whom I worked had regular contracts, secure work and good terms. They were supported by a recognised trade union, and felt a comfort and security in their jobs that was denied to many of those with whom I worked cleaning local schools. There, the practical realities of limited terms and conditions, and insecure work with non-guaranteed hours, were not artefacts of a contract or remote bureaucracy; they were tangible insecurities that hung over people’s day-to-day lives, and undermined their sense of security and ability to plan with confidence for the future that they wanted to provide for their family. That is why, many years down the line, I am proud to be part of a Labour Government who are delivering a record expansion of workplace rights through the Employment Rights Act 2025, and why the fundamental vision of protecting workers and ensuring a minimum social contract for those working hard for their families and doing right by their communities will always be foundational to my politics.
We come here not to embrace the contradictions and tensions that inhibit social change and progress, but to be creative enough and bold enough to lead the country, and to lead the way to a better economic settlement for the working families whom we are here to serve. That is why the minimum wage has been so transformational for our country, and why we have weekends now. I am very confident that in time, the Employment Rights Act will prove to be a big step forward for so many of the working people I am proud to represent. That does not mean that every aspect will always be perfect. Consultations with businesses and employers will be foundational in ensuring that we get the nuances right, when we look at how things play out in different employment settings, but the fundamental principle is this: my constituents and the cleaners I worked with deserve more confidence and security in their employment. That is exactly why I feel completely at home on the Government Benches, with my Labour colleagues.
The Conservatives’ motion raises important issues. It is absolutely right to say that, over many years, we have not done enough collectively to bear down on some of the barriers to young people getting employment. We are doing a lot of work on that, but there is a lot more that we need to do. I am really glad that this Government are waking up to the need to do far more on vocational skills and apprenticeships. They are thinking about how we can reform qualifications to ensure greater alignment with our industrial strategy, and the growth opportunities that will come from industrial changes, but they are also breaking down practical barriers to accessing opportunities for young people in my communities and right across the country. The Government are introducing foundational apprenticeships, and are making sure that they are in reach of the hardest-to-reach young people—those who are desperately in need of the steps into work that apprenticeships can provide. They are reforming levies to make it cheaper for employers to take on apprentices and give them the training that they desperately deserve.
Hannah Spencer (Gorton and Denton) (Green)
I very much agree with Members who have talked about the importance of summer jobs for young people, but as the hon. Gentleman says, we also need to think about providing more long-term jobs. Does he agree that it is vital that the Government reinvest all the money from the growth and skills levy in skills, and do not let the Treasury take away a top slice? We also need to make sure that the apprenticeship budget reflects the ambition of the sector; it could drive transformational change, and get our young people into the good jobs that they all deserve—good, long-term jobs and summer jobs.
I absolutely agree that we need to invest in apprenticeships to ensure that many more young people can access them, as well as work placement opportunities in their communities. That is why I welcome the spotlight that the Milburn review is already starting to shine, forensically, on barriers to young people accessing such opportunities. I am really keen to ensure that the Government lean into the practical implications of his diagnosis that we need to shift more money from supporting young people who are out of work into helping them into good paid work.
I am very proud to have supported the Government’s jobs guarantee, and of the wider work that we are doing to ensure that employers in my community and right across the country are practically and financially incentivised to bring young people into the world of work and supported to train them up, so that those young people can benefit from opportunities that feel out of reach to far too many of them at the moment. That is an approach that we need to thread into all our work in this space.
I was very moved by the conversations that Gareth Southgate had in last month’s documentary, in which young men who had been out of work for a very long time spoke of the impact it had on their self-esteem. It reflected issues with their confidence that had been long in the making. It reflected how they felt in their communities, and how they felt they were treated at school. Putting that right requires a continued focus on curriculum reform and place-based investment, but I would like the Government to go further in embracing the recommendations of the recent review on white working-class underachievement at school, to make sure that every young person, no matter what community they live in or where they come from, has no barriers to succeeding, and can feel confident in their ability to succeed at school.
In a moment of agreement, let me agree with the Conservative party’s diagnosis that we need to go slightly further on business rates to support fantastic local employers in doing more for young people. I think the Conservatives are being slightly cheeky in skirting the fact that the plans we inherited from them would have seen a huge cliff-edge increase in business rates. The many financial pressures that we have had to juggle since coming into government have meant that it has been challenging to balance things. I approve of the work that we have done to try to ease some of the multipliers, and I would like us to go further still. I also approve of the work that we have done to give further discounts to pubs, given that they have been in decline for decades, and I would like us to go further still there.
Fundamentally, however, the plans we inherited from the last Government would have been completely disastrous for the very businesses whose virtues the Conservatives are espousing today. If the Conservatives are so passionate about the errors of the Government’s choices on the minimum wage and national insurance, I encourage them to be bolder, and to do more than just offer regret, because regret will not change a single aspect of those policies’ implications. If they are genuinely confident that there are better ways to plug the gaps in our public finances and improve our public services, why are they not committing to reversing the national insurance hikes? If they genuinely believe that the minimum wage has gone up too far, why are they not embracing the practical end point of that argument by suggesting that they would cut it? Maybe it is because, much as they like to complain about the implications of our policies, they begrudgingly recognise that in the incredibly difficult circumstances that we inherited, both those choices may well have been right. I look forward to a Conservative Member proving me wrong.
I thank the many Members who have shared their fantastic experiences of summer work, and the many colleagues with whom it has been inspiring to work on some of these issues, including staff from Amazing Apprenticeships, a charity in my constituency that does genuinely amazing work to boost apprenticeship opportunities for young people across the country. I look forward to continuing to work with them as the Government bring forward the Milburn review.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
I am grateful to His Majesty’s Opposition for calling this debate today, as it gives me an opportunity to talk about a survey of young people that I did last year. It was a broad survey and statistically significant, with more than 500 young people in Mid Derbyshire engaging on their work and education opportunities and sharing their views on their futures.
Before I come to that, I will offer some reflections of my own experience of summer jobs, as that is the title of today’s debate. One such job was pulling out weeds for very low pay, which really taught me the value of hard work. I would go home from that job every day absolutely exhausted. I also spent some time during the university holidays pulling pints, which taught me how to deal with difficult people—a skill that I find myself using quite regularly in my current role. When I receive applications from people who want to work with me, I always think it is welcome if they spent their early career in hospitality, because workers can learn a great many skills in that industry that will serve them well in a great many jobs across the labour market. I also spent some time as a grave-digger, during the holidays when I was in the sixth form and at university—it perhaps serves as a metaphor for one or two things I have done subsequently.
I understand that this summer there may be some jobs going with the new occupant of Downing Street. If the Minister could have a word on my behalf, I shall be waiting by the phone.
Hannah Spencer
Does the hon. Member agree that there is a problem in Clacton, in particular, with certain people applying for jobs and then not actually doing them, or doing lots of other jobs instead of the one they should be doing? Perhaps we could think about a scheme where people like that do work experience with some of the incredible, hard-working young people who do vital jobs so that those people could learn a thing or two about how to behave in work and how to work hard.
Jonathan Davies
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. My focus is on the people of Mid Derbyshire, but I am sure that the people of Clacton will hold their representative to account in the appropriate way.
Of the young people who responded to my survey, 44% said that the cost of living was the biggest issue they faced, followed by housing and renting costs at 34% and employment and jobs at 33%. I want to read just one contribution from a constituent, which I found to be particularly profound. They said:
“Life for young people especially isn’t just unaffordable—it feels completely unattainable. I’ve had a job for nearly 5 years and am on the minimum wage. There is no way, with the state of the housing market and general cost to live that I’d be able to sustain moving out, renting or even learning to drive/buying a car. My independence seems—and I imagine it does for a lot of young people—like it will never fully arrive.”
That was mirrored in the fact that a great many of the young people who engaged with my survey were not optimistic about their futures. That is a moral and political tragedy.