Performance of Royal Mail

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Monday 26th October 2026 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I thank the hon. Members for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) and for Redditch (Chris Bloore) for initiating the debate, and, in particular, I thank the right hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) for his incredibly thoughtful speech. I am not going to get political about this, but our position for ages has been that we should renationalise Royal Mail.

When I read that Royal Mail would be delivering second-class mail only every second weekday, I misread it as, “Royal Mail will be delivering second-class mail every second weekend.” I thought, “Oh, thank goodness! My constituents in Bridge of Don will be getting a better service than the one that they currently receive,” because every second weekend would be significantly better than what they are getting now.

I have visited the delivery offices in my constituency. There is Bridge of Don, there is Mastrick and there is Kittybrewster. I think there is a benefit in living in Scotland in this regard, because the central comms people do not come to these meetings, so I get honesty from the posties. I am wondering what happens when I send a letter, or rather an email, to Royal Mail—there is no point in sending a letter—saying, “Mrs Goggins is having an issue with her mail delivery. She lives in Bridge of Don. Here is her address.” Does Royal Mail Central actually contact the delivery office and say, “Mrs Goggins is having a problem. Please reply and let us know what is happening”? Or does Royal Mail just send me an email back saying, “Everything is fine, it is all great, don't worry,” without actually speaking to the delivery office?

The hon. Member for Lichfield talked about not having all the answers. Well, I will tell the House who has most of the answers: the posties. The posties know what changes need to be made. I went to one of my local delivery offices, and the staff were talking about the design of the cages and the design of the routes. They had asked Royal Mail whether they could change some of the routes and cages. Royal Mail took months to get back to them, but it turned out that they were not allowed to change the design of the cages—they were dangerous, with things falling off them—without the say-so of Royal Mail. It is an incredibly top-down organisation. The posties know how to fix this. The posties know how to improve their routes. They are making these cases to Royal Mail Central, who come back to them with, “I know that that street is off this street, but we are going to keep it on the other route, just because we are in charge and it may look quite good on Google Maps.” I do not understand why Royal Mail is not listening to the posties, who know exactly what they are doing and who know how to improve the routes.

As hon. Members have said, the issue is that Royal Mail’s leadership are trying to asset strip the organisation. It feels like they are not trying to improve the service. They do not care about improving the service; they just care about improving profits. We have been fighting on behalf of our constituents, but we have also been fighting on behalf of the posties, who are not being listened to and who feel like they are banging their heads against a brick wall.

It is not just about NHS letters, although one constituent got in touch to say that they had not received any mail between 23 September and 14 October. They got nine letters, seven of which were NHS letters, and they have been put at the bottom of a waiting list because they missed their appointment. I can tell which letters are NHS letters when they come through my door or when I see them at the sorting office. I know which ones they are, as do the posties, but they are not allowed to take them out and ensure that they are being put at the top of the priority list.

[Dame Meg Hillier]

NHS letters have come up a lot, and we are letting Royal Mail off the hook if we say that it is okay to prioritise them. That is a workaround for a failed service, and many other letters are important but, for various reasons, will not be branded. Benefits letters, for example, are often anonymous, and sometimes even health letters can be private. Does the hon. Lady have anything to say about that?

[Kirsty Blackman]

The workaround on barcodes, for example, works only in some areas, and some of the health boards cannot use that workaround. It is absolutely a workaround; it does not ensure that we have a universal service obligation or that the postal service, which people rely on, is actually working.

I do not know about the offices of other MPs, but my office often needs to get people’s wet signatures. Organisations such as UK Visas and Immigration or local councils will require us to get someone to sign a form, and many times we have posted that form to people but they have not got it. What are we supposed to do if people do not have a printer at home? A lot of people do not, understandably. If somebody, particularly in the Bridge of Don, does not have a printer at home and we post them a form, they will not get the letter. How can they get a democratic service, or get us to raise a complaint with the city council on their behalf, if they are not getting the letter?

We have had too many by-elections this year, and a number of people in Aberdeen told us that they did not get their postal votes—they did not arrive. In a council by-election, it is hard enough to get people to vote, but when someone does not get their postal vote, they just say, “I won’t bother.” People are missing out on the democratic process because of the failure of Royal Mail, which cannot even prioritise those letters. I do not understand how Royal Mail can repeatedly say to each one of us, “Everything is fine,” or “We’re working on improvements,” when this is an absolute disaster.

The post is a lifeline. It is a really important public service, and we need Royal Mail and Ofcom to step up, but we need the Government to put on as much pressure as possible to ensure they do.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) for securing the debate and my hon. Friends the Members for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) and for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron), and many other hon. Members across the House, for their work on this matter. My constituents in Southend West and Leigh, like those of so many other hon. Members, have been rightfully disappointed in the service provided by Royal Mail. I concur with much of what I have heard.

Southend was the original pilot area for the optimised delivery model, so we have been experiencing these issues locally for well over a year. It was deeply concerning that the clear indications that the ODM was not working in Southend did not prevent it from being rolled out nationwide. It is increasingly frustrating for my constituents, who feel that they are not getting the service they are paying for. For many people, the poor service has been not just inconvenient but disastrous, and we have heard many stories tonight about how it has been replicated across the country.

NHS letters are not the only urgent post not being delivered. One constituent lost a job opportunity when a Disclosure and Barring Service certificate failed to arrive in time and another man, who was terminally ill, experienced unacceptable delays in receiving the paperwork he had requested to arrange his own funeral. I heard many such stories at a public meeting I held back in April, which gave residents the chance to put their concerns directly to Royal Mail’s regional management. Improvement was promised at the meeting, but guess what? It never came.

In July, I held a consultation, which received 122 responses in just a couple of days. I am sorry to say that the feedback was overwhelmingly negative. Of those 122, 102 said that they were “dissatisfied” or “very dissatisfied” with the postal service. Only one person considered the current standard of service acceptable.

Throughout this time, I have regularly met the CWU—the union that represents postal workers—and heard from it that postal workers in my constituency have been overworked, under immense pressure and unhappy with the standard of service they have been able to provide. They are equally unhappy at the massive variations between the old and new contracts, but I do not have time to talk about that.

I was heartened to hear—a bit of positivity—that after a visit in August, having requested my fourth visit to the depot, Southend sorting office, in partnership with CWU reps, was ready to trial a new system that would rebalance the round loads and help reinforce the local link between the postie and their area in an amendment to DM26 that is about to be rolled out. Posties are much more efficient when they know the layout of their rounds, so it is clearly not rocket science to have them on a dedicated round.

The trial took place in Leigh-on-Sea in my constituency. A month later, I was glad to visit the sorting office again and see the racks empty—but this time the CWU assured me that things had worked well and that, in that particular round, they were back in control. As of 19 October, the new system has been rolled out across our whole sorting office area. I will be keeping a watching brief, but it is showing real positive signs. I hope that those at Royal Mail will look at the success of the local pilot and roll it out across the rest of the country. If it is working, why would they not?

[Kirsty Blackman]

Does the hon. Member share my concern that Royal Mail bosses do not seem to want to improve the service? So many of my constituents are no longer posting anything because they do not believe that it is ever going to get there—the lack of service means that lots of people are turning away from the postal service completely. Does he feel that if Royal Mail continues down the route of putting DM26 in place without the amendments, people will give up on Royal Mail entirely and we will risk losing it totally?

[David Burton-Sampson]

I share those concerns. We have heard from Members across the House tonight that many people feel that Royal Mail is putting the service into a managed decline. We have to fight against that. The service is vital across the country, and we have to do everything we can to ensure that we do not lose it. Royal Mail has let people down for far too long, and it needs to work at speed to get things back on track.

It was great to see the Government’s announcement in September about cracking down on bogus self-employment. That is rightly a priority for the CWU. Delivery companies undercutting Royal Mail’s prices by mislabelling staff as self-employed to avoid statutory obligations—shifting costs on to workers so that nothing is covered—is unacceptable. Those companies do not cover sick pay, employer national insurance contributions, holidays or even the petrol used for deliveries. We do not want to see Royal Mail dragged down to that level. Our Government want everyone to enjoy security in their employment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kirsty Blackman]

I thank the hon. Member for talking about the statistics—it is really important to do that. I am concerned, though, that the statistics, particularly those provided by Royal Mail, are deeply inaccurate. My constituents say they are not getting mail for three weeks at a time very regularly, but Royal Mail has come back to me and said, “Everything’s pretty fine—don’t worry about it.” Is he concerned that Ofcom might not even know the full breadth of the issue, particularly as we have heard Members from Aberdeen, from the Western Isles and from Devon all raising the same issue? It is clearly happening everywhere.

[Luke Murphy]

Indeed, I was going to say that I would like to see the Government press Ofcom and Royal Mail to deliver much more granular data on delivery targets. That is really important, because the national performance —woeful as it is—does not represent the even worse performance that we are seeing locally. Indeed, Royal Mail has been set lower targets nationally, but it is not even meeting them. And behind these figures and statistics are the streets and lanes, like those in my constituency, where the post simply does not come. Members across this House recognise this; it is a cross-party concern about a service that the whole country depends on. The Communication Workers Union has highlighted this over and again: persistent delivery failures; a growing recruitment and retention crisis; and an unevenly regulated postal market which threatens the future of the universal service that we have heard so many Members speak about so passionately tonight.

Royal Mail has told all of us, I think, that it recognises the problem and is committed and is making promises for change but, frankly, all of us in this House and my constituents have heard these promises before. The test of any plan will not be what it says on paper; it will be whether hospital letters start to arrive before appointments.

I welcome the Government’s clear stance in response. Ministers have told Royal Mail’s leadership that its service has been unacceptable for too long and the pace of improvement must increase. The public deserve a reliable postal service and are right to expect better, and I welcome the Government’s commitment to keep holding Royal Mail to account. I hope the Minister will continue applying that pressure. In particular, I hope she will consider whether Ofcom is currently really up to the job of regulating Royal Mail and look closely at how Royal Mail handles complaints. As many Members have said this evening, our constituents find the way in which it deals with those complaints totally inadequate. The Government must also press for greater transparency on local performance, as we have just discussed, and look seriously at the recommendations of the Business and Trade Committee’s May 2026 report on the regulation of postal services and the proposals, as other Members have mentioned, from the CWU, including on a level playing field for the sector, a new regulatory framework and building on the Government’s golden share.

Royal Mail remains a vital national institution providing an essential universal service. We all have a stake in ensuring it succeeds, not least my constituents in Basingstoke, who have every right to expect better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Ranger (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Like colleagues from across the House, my constituents have been telling me for months and months now—in casework emails, in surgeries, on street stalls and everywhere else you can think of—that the service they rely on is no longer the one they used to have. As has been mentioned many times, residents report important letters arriving weeks late, hospital appointments being missed, financial documents turning up long after they were needed, and businesses struggling with uncertainty over deliveries.

For communities such as Wrexham, this is not simply an inconvenience; it is a matter of fairness, connectivity and trust in a public service. While many people have embraced digital communication, not everyone can. Elderly residents, vulnerable individuals, rural households and those without reliable digital access continue to depend on the arrival of letters through the door.

[Kirsty Blackman]

On missed deliveries, and I suppose their emotional cost, the Chair of the Treasury Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), asked the right hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) about the resource cost for Royal Mail. Does the hon. Member for Wrexham (Andrew Ranger) agree that the potential cost to the economy of Royal Mail not delivering these letters—the cost to public services, with NHS appointments being missed—could be rediverted in order to fund some of Royal Mail, were it to be renationalised?

[Andrew Ranger]

The hon. Member makes a really good point. That is definitely something we need to investigate, because it is probably a very valid point.

Postal services remain a lifeline for those who do not have digital connectivity, and any failures disproportionately affect the most vulnerable. As has been acknowledged across the House, Royal Mail is facing difficult circumstances. Letter volumes have fallen dramatically over many years and parcel volumes have grown significantly. That reflects changes across the world. Royal Mail is operating at a loss and faces significant structural challenges.

All that being said, understanding those challenges cannot mean accepting poor service. One of the most concerning issues raised with MPs by postal workers and their representatives is the widespread perception that parcels are increasingly prioritised over letters, and constituents say the same. That is despite assurances to the contrary. I have constituents who see parcels arriving promptly, on time, delivered by Royal Mail when they were supposed to be, but not letters.

Serious workforce concerns are also being reported. As we have heard, there have been retention problems due to changing terms and conditions, reports of 400 postal workers leaving the organisation each week, a culture of intense monitoring and an increasingly difficult working environment. It is clear that Royal Mail cannot provide a high-quality service without a motivated and stable workforce. At the same time, serious questions remain about the long-term sustainability of the current model, in terms of the universal service obligation, the delivery of letters, and the regulatory model.

My constituents and everyone else’s want three simple things: they want their letters delivered on time, they want transparency when things go wrong, and they want accountability from both Royal Mail and the regulator. Too often, MPs are told that performance is improving while residents continue to experience delays. Too often, complaints disappear into automated systems without satisfactory answers, and too often, local concerns are met with generic responses rather than meaningful action.

As has been said, Royal Mail occupies a unique position in our national life. It is not just another company; it is a vital part of the UK’s social and economic infrastructure, and it remains a public service even though it is a privately owned company. That is why this matters. I urge the Minister to continue engaging with Royal Mail, Ofcom, workforce representatives and consumer groups to develop a long-term vision for postal services. Any future reforms must protect the universal service obligation, while recognising the needs of communities, supporting a sustainable workforce, and ensuring that no part of the country is left with a substandard service. I wholeheartedly agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) on some of the options that he presented about a possible future for Royal Mail.

Our constituents do not expect perfection—they understand that times change and markets evolve—but they do expect that when a letter is posted, it arrives when it should. That is not an unreasonable expectation; it is the foundation of trust in a service that has connected communities for generations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bradley Thomas]

What I recognise is that the problem is getting worse. As I have mentioned, it is incumbent on the Government to get a grip of the situation. I hope that the Government have heard loud and clear the concerns from Members across the House, regardless of political party, about what their constituents are facing, and that the Minister will address those concerns shortly.

[Kirsty Blackman]

Will the hon. Gentleman join calls for more granular data, so that we can ensure that every constituency is represented in the data? Some Members have talked specifically about towns and villages, where I appreciate that there is an issue, but there is also an issue in cities. A number of us who represent cities have said that we have problems.

[Bradley Thomas]

That is a point I will touch on with regard to transparency levels.

There have been seven stamp price rises in four years, with the price of a first-class stamp having doubled since 2022. It is clear that residents in my constituency, and those represented by Members from across the House, are paying a first-class price for a second-class service. If consumers are expected to pay higher prices for a service, they rightly expect such a service to deliver on its promises, yet residents face a much different reality from what Royal Mail claims. Its local performance target of 87% of first-class post being delivered the next working day was achieved in only 42 of the 118 postcode areas—a statistic that resonates with my constituents and those of many Members here today. Every industry has a level of standard that it is expected to meet, and Royal Mail should not be any different, but it is failing. It is time for accountability and material action in order to deliver tangible results.

Alongside the stark statistics that have been quoted, the House will have heard me and other Members express strong discontent in Westminster Hall last week about the report earlier this year that Royal Mail will deliver 219 million letters late. With NHS waiting lists already too long, we cannot afford for more appointments to be missed due to late letter delivery. With the cost of living already debilitating families across the country, they cannot afford missed payment charges due to delayed bill arrival.

To be clear, and in common with Members from across the House, I do not believe that the fault lies with the hard-working posties who serve our communities. We are grateful for all that they do to keep us connected, but action must be taken by the highest levels of management to quickly address the real-life experiences that are depleting customer confidence. Management are failing and, speaking from my own personal experience, I am sick and tired of the platitudes that come from Royal Mail. I echo and share the concerns of Members from across the House.

In Westminster Hall last week, the Minister shared that she has been frank in her meetings with the chief executive of Royal Mail and will continue to do so for as long as necessary. However, with Christmas, the busiest time of year for postal services, only 60 days away, it is time for immediate action, not more meetings and passing the blame back and forth. Something that needs to be focused on is transparency around local delivery data, as has been suggested in the Chamber this evening. Can the Minister outline the material steps the Government are taking, alongside Ofcom, to ensure an improved service is delivered as quickly as possible? Do they have confidence that Royal Mail’s improvement plan will deliver the needed changes promptly? At what point is the service so bad that the Government decide that further action is necessary?

Expecting what you paid for is a basic standard, not an unreasonable demand. The public are tired of a failing service that continues to worsen, disrupting daily routines and tarnishing its former reputation for reliability. This is a matter of national importance about a national institution, and I believe all our constituents would like to know specifically how the Government are working with Royal Mail and Ofcom to take concrete steps to correct these issues to restore public confidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Dearden]

I will be raising this issue with Royal Mail, and I will touch on my interactions with the chief executive later in my speech.

[Kirsty Blackman]

We know that postal vote letters not being delivered is an issue, and a number of us have seen that in our constituencies. I appreciate that the Minister is being clear with Royal Mail that it is an important issue, but is she aware of or has she asked Royal Mail how many of those letters were not delivered on time? How many complaints have been made? We know that a significant number of people are not even making complaints, because they do not think there is any point.

[Kate Dearden]

Colleagues have raised numerous concerns about missed mail in the Chamber and outside, and I will always raise that issue with Royal Mail. Where I need to push for transparency, I will do so. I will come shortly to what I have pushed the chief executive on.

With Christmas approaching, improvements clearly cannot wait. This is Royal Mail’s busiest period. Families and businesses that we have heard about are relying on timely deliveries. I welcome the commitment from Royal Mail to recruit 22,000 staff to help deliver this Christmas, and I will be seeking reassurances that it is doing everything it can to meet the demand.

As colleagues know, the Government do not run the delivery operations of independent businesses such as Royal Mail, but that does not mean that we are a passive observer. I have challenged Royal Mail’s leadership on performance, and I have been frank with them, as has the Prime Minister, that the pace of improvement needs to urgently increase.

Humble Address: Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

The right hon. Gentleman says he has not applied for a post as a trade envoy. I do not want to show the House the text messages he sent me, but anyway, he makes a fair point. I want to make sure that the trade envoy programme is really effective and delivers around the world. I was with Lord Alderdice the other day, who is not a member of the Labour party, at the London stock exchange when the Uzbek national investment fund was being listed in the UK. His intervention in Uzbekistan has been enormously important in taking forward some of these investments into the UK and listings at the LSE. Indeed, we could see a further investment at the LSE, which would be the biggest ever listing here. The hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), who is a Conservative Member, is also a trade envoy and does a good job.

I did not understand the right hon. Gentleman’s question about diptels. As I said earlier, we are trawling through everything we can to see whether there is anything else that is of relevance under the Humble Address terms. So far, we have published everything we have that is relevant. I can guarantee the House that if there is anything more, we will of course come forward.

I was also asked by the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) whether there was any monitoring of the relationship between Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein. I did not answer that question; I apologise. I have seen absolutely nothing to that effect. If I had, I would have published it.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

May I first make it clear that I have no desire to be a trade envoy? Aberdeen is the best place on earth and I do not want to be anywhere else if I can help it.

The Minister of State said in his statement that people are still looking. Will he advise us if they stop looking? I appreciate that they might currently be actively looking because there may be boxes that they have not gone through, but will he advise us when there is definitely an end to this, unless somebody accidentally comes across something?

My second question relates to future trade envoys. I am not sure how much the process for appointing them has changed, but can he give us a reassurance that the process is much better than it used to be? If it is not, can he give us a reassurance that he will look at that, so that we can all feel comfortable that our trade envoys are the right people, or certainly not the wrong people, to be doing that job?

[Chris Bryant]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady that she does not want to be a trade envoy. I often feel as if I am a trade envoy for Scotland, because we are often securing good deals, as we just have with the Gulf Co-operation Council, and in India. We have just done remarkably well—

Backing Business to Create Economic Growth

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, may I give you a heads-up? I am going to mention a number of hon. Members, all of whom I have contacted in advance to let them know that I will be mentioning them.

There has been an awful lot of talk about regulation in the debate. I remind the Conservatives that the vast bulk of regulation that businesses are labouring under was created during or prior to their 14 years in office. A huge amount of the regulation affecting businesses that transport things abroad or sell things overseas is because of Brexit. There are many reasons why regulation has come in, and not all of them are down to this Labour Government. I agree that it is important to listen to businesses—something that the Labour Government are singularly failing to do—when they ask for easy, small changes to be made that will make their lives significantly easier. The Labour Government—all Governments —should listen to those businesses and consider making those changes.

Since 2024, the Government have been mired in stagnation. They do not seem able to do or achieve anything. Some of the pre-consultation draft Bills that were suggested in the last King’s Speech never made it to Parliament—we never saw them—so even putting aside the current chaos, how can we believe that all the things in the King’s Speech will come before this Parliament for us to make decisions on?

On regulation, the Office for Tax Simplification was started and cancelled by the Conservative Government. If we need a simpler tax system, then surely an Office for Tax Simplification would be the sensible route to take, but that is not the only burden that is faced. I agree that to keep people safe, keep businesses profitable and ensure that businesses can export to wherever they want, we need simpler regulations that make sense and have a purpose—not regulations that are there just because they are what we had 100 years ago, 50 years ago or 20 years ago.

On the red tape around regulation, there is more to be done on pension funds. Despite the Pension Schemes Act 2026, which I largely support, there is still more that can be done to free up some of the money in pension funds. For example, I would love to see more pension fund money going into building more social housing. We know that we will get a return on social housing, as people pay rent on those social houses. I would love to see flexibility introduced, so that the Government can create pipelines for smaller-scale energy projects, such as renewable energy projects for communities, and social housing. Pension funds could then invest our money in them. We must remember that it is our money in those pension funds, but that money is not being invested in ways that will ensure growth, in both living standards and the economy.

Touching on my constituency and jobs in Aberdeen, I recently met a business in my patch called Lows Tradional Fish & Chips. Lows is an excellent chipper; we call them chippers in Aberdeen, but everybody else seems to call them chippies. Lows talked to me about the increase in its energy costs, which have more than tripled. It is important that the UK Government consider that seriously. They claim that they have targeted support for businesses. It should not be just for high-energy businesses that have to use significant amounts of electricity and gas to make ceramics and other goods; that support should extend to smaller businesses that use significant amounts of heat—for example, in order to cook fish and chips. In Aberdeen, the fish is generally haddock, not cod. The Chancellor needs to keep those businesses in mind when making her announcement later this week—potentially on Thursday—about energy costs.

Oil and gas jobs in Aberdeen are disappearing like snaw aff a dyke, which means “very quickly”. That is the legacy of the Conservative Government, who created the energy profits levy, and the result of this Government not listening to people. The Conservatives can talk about drilling all they want, but if they cancel renewables, there is no future for our energy industries. The Labour Government can talk about renewables all they want, but unless we fill the gap in between, all those folk from my constituency and across the north-east—the engineers, and the people who are innovating and creating amazing products that ensure we can exploit energy and provide energy security—will go away. They will go to Malaysia to work, and they will not be here, paying taxes and inventing those things. We need both types of energy generation, and neither of the two main parties are offering that.

[Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it was folly for this Government to cancel the Ming Yang project at Ardersier?

[Kirsty Blackman]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Local jobs would have been created. We have rural population decline; we need to encourage people to move to rural areas by creating those jobs. This UK Government, and past UK Governments, have failed the people of north-east Scotland who work in the energy industries. We need change, or those jobs will continue to disappear.

Scottish National party Members have tabled amendment (c) to the King’s Speech. The amendment says,

“having lost confidence in your leadership”—

Oh no, sorry, that is not our amendment—that is what the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) said. I will try again. The amendment says:

“It is clear that the Prime Minister no longer has the trust or confidence of the public to lead this change.”

No, apologies; the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) said that. I will try again to find the amendment that we have tabled about the Prime Minister and our confidence in him. What about these?

“It is in the best interest of the country and the party that the Prime Minister sets out a swift timetable to ensure that a new leader is in place to regain the confidence of the public.”

No, that was the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris). I am sure I have got our amendment here somewhere, so let me try again.

“It’s clear that the Prime Minister no longer has the trust or confidence of the public, or large swathes of the Parliamentary Labour Party”.

No, that was the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee).

“The Prime Minister has…failed to instil confidence in his leadership”.

No, that was the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). Sorry, I will find the amendment—it is somewhere here, I am sure of it. Does it say,

“the public across the UK has now irretrievably lost confidence in you as Prime Minister”?

No, that was the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Dr Ahmed). I am sure I have the amendment somewhere. Does it say,

“it’s clear from countless doorstep conversations that my constituents have lost confidence in him”?

No, that was the hon. Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger). I am sure it is here. Does it say that

“you, Prime Minister, have lost the trust and confidence of the public”?

No, that was the hon. Member for Peckham (Miatta Fahnbulleh).

Our amendment says:

“At end add ‘but respectfully regret to inform Your Majesty that the Prime Minister does not have the confidence of this House.’”

Given my amazing confusion about the similarity between what a significant number of Labour Members have said in public and our amendment—it is almost the same wording—I assume that our amendment will be by far the most popular amendment tabled. It clearly has significant cross-party support. I have not yet heard any Member talk in the Chamber today about their confidence in the Prime Minister.

[Dr Arthur]

I thank the hon. Lady for entertaining us all; she is having fun. I remember the shambolic end to Humza Yousaf’s tenure as First Minister in Scotland— it was shambolic; she will admit that. Having reflected on that period, which was a real crisis for her party and for Scotland, what advice can she offer Labour Members? What did she learn from that process?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. May I give a tiny bit of advice? Let us keep this short, because there are many hon. Members wishing to contribute to the debate.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I will try to give a short piece of advice, Madam Deputy Speaker. If I were in the Scottish Labour party, I would either say, “We are a separate party from UK Labour, and we make our own decisions”, or I would say, “We back the Prime Minister.” It is clear that Anas Sarwar, the leader of Scottish Labour, does not back the Prime Minister, and does not have confidence in him. He and many of his MSPs and MPs have said that Scottish Labour is a separate party, which makes its own decisions. I assume that the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) follows his Scottish leader, supports ending the Prime Minister’s reign, and is looking forward to that, like all his colleagues.

As I said, our amendment can hardly fail to be the most popular amendment tabled, given that so many hon. Members from across the House have explicitly stated how much they support our position, so I am sure that they will vote for it on Wednesday.

Post Office Green Paper

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Blair McDougall]

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

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

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

[Blair McDougall]

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

ExxonMobil: Mossmorran

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Chris McDonald]

What my hon. Friend identifies is the different approach under this Government—a Government who have an active industrial policy and work in partnership with industry, in the same way that I saw other European Governments did when I worked in industry. He tells a sorry tale about the lack of involvement and engagement of the previous Westminster Government and the SNP Scottish Government regarding the ownership of the plant. That is in stark contrast with my predecessor in this role and the previous Secretary of State, as was also highlighted today by the Energy Minister with regard to the refining sector—another sector about which we are desperately concerned. Until this Government took action to meet the management, there had not been a meeting with a Westminster Government Minister for 13 years.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

We are seeing 400 jobs go, and we saw jobs go at Grangemouth. Is the Minister surprised that people in Aberdeen and the north-east of Scotland, who are arguing for a just transition and being promised 60,000 jobs five years hence, have no faith in this Labour Government?

[Chris McDonald]

I am grateful for the opportunity that the hon. Lady has given me to clarify some words I said earlier. I did talk about 60,000 jobs by 2030, but it is actually 23,000 jobs in the industry by 2023, and new jobs are being created every day as a result of our investments in renewable clean energy. Beyond 2030 we can see that the clean energy industry is motoring ahead, but these few years are a really difficult transition and we need to work together. Jobs in the clean energy industry are being created every day, but a situation like Mossmorran obviously involves a significant number of jobs all at once. As I said earlier, we can see a way forward for 60% of the direct jobs at the site, and it is important to me that we also work with the other 40% to ensure that they are placed to get good jobs in the local economy.

North Sea Oil and Gas Industry

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Monday 27th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

I rightly expect to be challenged in the House on the Government’s policies. A strong back-and-forth exchange is important. In this one instance, however, and separate from any view that Members might have on the wider policies of this Government, it is important that we come together where we can and say that this is a strong, successful, growing company. It is in all our interests across the House to talk up the importance of that company’s continuing to be successful so that a buyer or another commercial resolution is found and those jobs can be maintained. That is surely in all our interests.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Every single one of us has been criticising Government policy, not criticising Petrofac, the expertise and workers at Petrofac, or any of the workers in our oil and gas industry. The Minister says that he has been spending time in Aberdeen. Does he have any idea how it feels to be in Aberdeen just now, with another hammer blow coming? And it is because of the Government’s policies; it is because there is this massive gap. Skilled workers in the oil and gas industry will just go abroad; they will go elsewhere. It does not matter whether we retrain them; the jobs are not there for them right now. What is he going to do to plug that gap? What will he do to keep these skilled workers in Scotland, in Aberdeen and in these islands, and not drive them away?

[Michael Shanks]

I take the hon. Lady’s first point with a pinch of salt, after her second point that this comes as a hammer blow to the community. There is no hammer blow; those jobs have been protected—today 2,000 workers are waking up and doing the same job they were doing last week.

I am often in Aberdeen but I do not pretend that I hear as much from people there as the hon. Lady does from her constituents. Although I have made an effort to be there as often as possible to hear the concerns, I recognise that we need to move further and faster than the previous Government did for 14 years, and the Scottish Government did for 18 years, to put a credible plan in place for the future of those jobs. That means not only investing in future jobs, but ensuring the processes are in place so that people can take advantage of those jobs much more easily. Passporting, which was stuck in the mud for years, is now being delivered because we helped to unlock it. There is a lot more to do, and we will say that in the coming weeks when we publish our future of the North sea plan, but we are the ones driving forward investment that creates the jobs of the future. I am afraid that other parties—I did not count the hon. Lady’s party as one of those until today—are harking back to the past rather than recognising that the jobs of the future need to go hand in hand with good, well-paid oil and gas jobs in the short term.

Parental Leave Review

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders]

One thing that has become clear, not particularly in relation to paternity leave but in relation to shared parental leave, is that employers often find it difficult to navigate the system, never mind the parents. We will be considering and looking at that as part of the review.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Only 3% of women surveyed by Maternity Action had no financial worries during the course of their pregnancy. Given how awful that statistic is, will the Minister commit to listening to people with lived experience and co-producing the outcomes of the review with them?

[Justin Madders]

The hon. Member makes an important point. We will of course be taking representations from all interested parties. A call for evidence is now live and will be up for a period of eight weeks, and we encourage any bodies that have important things to say to feed those in as part of the process.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Allister (North Antrim) (TUV)]

Forgive me for bringing the Commons back to the purpose of Parliament. Its historic purpose is to make laws for our constituents and to hold the Executive to account. That is the fundamental that has been loosened by this Bill. Although it is entirely skeletal in form, the Bill’s effect is very far-reaching indeed.

It is quite obvious that the Bill has a clear purpose, which is to align Great Britain with the EU single market on goods. If it were not so, we would not have clause 2(7). The standard that is set in that clause is the EU standard. If the Bill was just about creating the opportunity to make regulations because of a regulatory gap, it would not be tethered to the EU provisions on goods. It would be open ended, and we would be free to make the choice that best suited us. However, the giveaway clause in the Bill is clause 2(7). That lets the cat out of the bag, as indeed did the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) when she quite clearly indicated that that was the direction of travel that she sought. Therefore, that is the purpose.

When we look at clause 1(2), we again have the open affirmation of the desire to make the compliance with “relevant EU law”, so it is abundantly clear that this is a creation to realign us with EU law. The intent is to create this vehicle for realignment without voters noticing. Of course that means realignment with laws that we do not make and that we cannot change because they are made by a foreign Parliament. The ambition in this Bill in respect of clause 2(7) is to disenfranchise—as has happened already in Northern Ireland by our subjugation to the EU single market and all its rules—the people of the United Kingdom, so that, in their entirety, they are at the Government’s whim and can be subjected to laws they do not make and cannot change. That then inextricably ties us to the European Court of Justice. It is the ECJ that mediates and deliberates on those laws that this Bill wishes to tie us to. Therefore, it is an attempt to tie us not just to the EU single market, but to the court that rules the EU’s single market.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

On the point the hon. and learned Gentleman is making about enfranchisement and the fact that he wishes this Parliament to be in control of the powers that it has, does he agree that it would be sensible for the UK Government to ensure that, where powers are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, for example, they seek consent from Scottish Ministers rather than just legislating? The Bill, as currently drafted, allows Ministers here to legislate in areas of devolved competency, much as he is making the case that the EU court would be allowed to do.

[Jim Allister]

One critical thing about the Bill is that, under the Sewel convention, it does not extend to secondary legislation. It does not extend to statutory instruments. The Bill drives a coach and horses through the Sewel convention as far as devolution is concerned, because it heaps all the powers into statutory instruments. One might expect such a bold move to realign the United Kingdom with EU law to be an up-front piece of legislation. I do not think that that is too much to ask—that it should be plain and clear for all to see. Instead, it is to be conveyed in these statutory instruments. And statutory instruments, as we know, are those that, in the main, pass through unnoticed. We have all been to Delegated Legislation Committees. We know that they are farcical in that the Minister comes in with a brief, which is simply rigidly read, and Members nod the motion through. It is a farcical way to make legislation of any sort.

Global Intergenerational Week 2024

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Thursday 9th May 2024 Westminster Hall

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

Thank you for chairing this meeting, Mr Efford. It is great to speak in this debate alongside my hon. Friend and SNP colleague the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows). I am afraid I cannot profess to speak for young people, as I am now 38. I am told that if you are under 45 you are considered a young parliamentarian, but I can probably no longer consider myself young. Nine years in this job has given me quite a lot of grey hairs that I never had before.

I really appreciate the diversity within Parliament. It is not good enough yet—we are not as diverse a Parliament as we should be—but the plethora of voices and different outlooks means that we make better decisions, because we all have different life experiences and come from different backgrounds. I thank Generations Working Together for the work that it has done for Global Intergenerational Week, and particularly for highlighting it in Scotland and ensuring that as many people as possible are talking about it.

My hon. Friend said that intergenerational work should be seen not as something nice, but as something essential. I completely agree, but it is also something nice: it is something fabulous that should be celebrated, talked about and written into practice at all levels where the Government have a level of control. All kinds of public sector organisation should be expected to consider, work with and implement intergenerational practice wherever they can, so that we can get the best possible decisions made and the best outcomes for everyone.

Nobody is simply a strain on economic resources. Whether somebody is young or older, whether they are black or white, whether they are disabled or are running marathons every weekend, whether they are gay or asexual, whether they are a migrant or have lived here all their life, whether they vote or not, every single person has value. Every single person has a unique experience and a unique perspective that they can bring to the table. We have a responsibility as representatives to listen to all those voices—every single one—in order to make the best possible decisions. If we are listening and understanding all those different perspectives as best we can, we are more likely to consider them when we are taking decisions, and to make better decisions for everybody in our constituencies across these islands.

In Scotland and in the SNP, civic values run through everything we do. In Scotland the people are sovereign, not Parliament. We should, and do, celebrate diversity and value everyone for their perspective. I am unsurprised that this work has had a great base and has taken off in Scotland.

I want to talk about a few of my personal experiences and things I have heard. There was a great Girlguiding reception in Parliament this week, with the first Westminster Palace Brownies. It was truly brilliant to see the Brownies in Parliament—it was really cool coming up the stairs and hearing applause, because it is so rare to hear it in Westminster. Hearing that applause and hearing the Brownies singing was absolutely fabulous.

I was a Rainbow leader a number of years ago. One of the best things we did in my time was taking the Rainbows, who were very small—from age five to seven or eight—to sing Christmas carols for the older people in the nursing home next door. It was just such a fabulous event, because everybody enjoyed it: the Rainbows had a brilliant time singing and the older people in the care home really enjoyed it too. Maybe they did not see an awful lot of young people in their lives; maybe they were isolated and lonely, but they enjoyed those interactions. I genuinely loved doing it.

At a sheltered housing surgery in my constituency a few years ago, I met a chap from Aberdeen who had been a tram driver. The trams in Aberdeen stopped running in 1958, so he was a wee bit older than me. I am not a geek, honest—no, I definitely am—but I have a bit of an obsession with public transport. Hearing about what driving a tram was like and about his experiences and the routes he used to take made the history of my city come alive. I love the social history stuff, but actually being able to hear it from someone was one of the coolest things I have done in my time.

This week, I shared with a group of colleagues a photo of my family that was taken 13 years ago. We had five generations in one room, in one photo: me, my son, my dad, my granny and my great-granny. Most people are not lucky enough to have five generations together, but we have generations of about 25 years each. The experience for everybody was so affirming. It was so brilliant to be part of the thread that links those generations. We all come with different perspectives and all come with different experiences.

My great-granny’s dad was killed during the first world war. As a result, she grew up in absolute poverty. I compare that with the situation we are in now: my children have absolutely not grown up in poverty. The different perspectives and experiences, and the improvements we have managed to make in our own lives over the generations, were really lovely for my great-granny to see, hear and understand. She knew that my children would not have the same childhood she did or the same struggles she faced. It was really brilliant on that account.

Understanding between the generations breaks down barriers and makes for better decision making. I have mentioned this a few times, but there are studies that show that a company with a more diverse board makes more money as a result. That is empirical, solid, statistical evidence showing that diversity ensures that lots of people with different perspectives can come together and make the best possible decisions. It is incredibly important.

I have met Age UK a couple of times recently and have spoken in this House about digital exclusion—I am thinking particularly about older people, as well as people in areas of deprivation, for example. I agree entirely that lots of older people can teach lots of things to younger people, but younger people also have valuable experience and understanding that they can teach older people. There are organisations in my constituency like Silver City Surfers, which brings together older people and younger people so the younger people can teach the older ones how to access online banking or online shopping, or how to check online when their bin collection is. That intergenerational learning, which can be passed in both directions, is really brilliant. Everybody, no matter their age, has some wisdom that they can offer and some learning that they can share.

I have worked as a local authority councillor and have spent a lot of time dealing with various services in the public sector. There can be silos in organisations’ decision making, particularly in the public sector; I do not know whether it is the same in the private sector. We need to break down those barriers. Ensuring that people of different ages and different generations, and people from different public sector organisations, can spend time and make decisions together leads to better decisions for everybody.

In Scotland, we have the “Getting it right for every child” curriculum. Part of the approach in schools and local authority care settings is about ensuring that we get things right for every single chid. If I had a magic wand and were in charge of everything, I would definitely go far further and ensure that we are trying to get it right for every single person, looking at their unique circumstances and providing the support that they need to meet the challenges they face at that stage of their life.

One thing I talk about quite a lot in Westminster Hall—I am always surprised that Labour Members do not talk about it more, because they should—is the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. It is one of the most truly brilliant pieces of legislation I have ever heard about. It is on a par with some of the stuff on global domestic wellbeing that we are doing in Scotland, and the founding of the wellbeing economy partnerships. It is entirely about ensuring that decision making is protecting and improving the quality of life for the generations who are coming through. The Future Generations Commissioner in Wales ensures that the decisions taken by public sector bodies protect younger generations, not just older generations, and maintain or improve everyone’s quality of life. It is incredibly important to think about how our decision making improves wellbeing for individuals as well as for societies and communities. That Act is incredibly useful and underlines that point.

Lastly, I want to talk about trust and loneliness, which my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw has spoken about. An awful lot of young people who have been through covid and have spent a period of their school life at home have an issue with trust. They do not necessarily have trust in their teachers, in authority figures or in older people, because a period of their formative years, when they should have been learning about interactions, had to spent away from others, isolated and lonely as a result of covid. Breaking down the barriers and putting younger and older people together, so they can work together and do things as a team, rebuilds that trust. It makes it more likely that younger people will say, “Actually, I recognise the value, experience and wisdom that people of other generations bring to the table. I recognise that they might have a different perspective from mine, but it’s just as valuable and just as important as mine.”

Getting young people to engage with the systems that they need to engage with, instead of just feeling that they have to step out, is particularly important during a cost of living crisis. A Girlguiding survey last year said that 63% of girls living in the most deprived areas worry about the cost of living and its impact on them and their family. Young people are worried about that and are struggling to engage with authority figures because of what they have been through. Improving relationships and getting young people work with older people, so they realise that they are not terrifying—that in most cases they are lovely—really helps to break down the barriers and ensure that young people can contribute to the full extent of their talents.

Thank you again for chairing this meeting, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw once more: I am absolutely delighted and honoured to stand beside her in this room.

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

It is a real pleasure to participate in this debate with you in the Chair, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) for securing a debate on this subject.

I always say, and I really do believe, that being a Member of Parliament is the best job in the world, but I was delighted to hear the hon. Lady speak about her joy in being a granny, which is a very important job indeed. It is such a privilege to be here for the first time Parliament has debated this really important subject. Although Global Intergenerational Week was a few weeks ago, it is excellent to see colleagues gathered here to discuss it.

It is really important that we embrace intergenerational practice and relationships, whether that is as individuals, groups, organisations, Governments or political parties. We have heard many great examples during this brief discussion today, such as living arrangements bringing people together, as well as different projects and organisations, and oral history, which I agree is incredibly important.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) talked about children being brought into residential homes. My children also had that experience when they were attending a co-operative nursery. It was incredibly important for them, particularly as they do not have close relatives living nearby; I felt that was very important indeed.

As well as bringing people together, we also need to make sure that all people of different generations and age groups are protected from the kind of stereotyping that we are hearing about, and from discrimination. We need to ensure that everyone, regardless of age, is treated with dignity and respect, and treated equally in our society. As well as protections that apply to people of any age, the Equality Act 2010 enshrines in law protections against discrimination on the basis of age. No one should be discriminated against because they are or are not a certain age or in a certain age group. For 14 years, that landmark legislation, which many other countries have tried to copy, has protected people of all ages from direct and indirect discrimination, as well as from harassment and victimisation. It has helped to build understanding of the challenges that different age groups face. The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw stressed that many of those challenges are common to different generations.

It was great to hear the hon. Member for Aberdeen North talking about some of the privileges we have as parliamentarians and the job that we do when we are seeking to represent everyone in our constituencies. I too had the privilege of seeing the Brownies at their first ever meeting in the House of Commons, which was very exciting.

Another privilege we have as parliamentarians—I am sure others will recognise this—is that people send us reading material. I was sent a fascinating book, “Generations”, by Bobby Duffy, who has done a lot of work looking into the stereotypes about different generations. The book comprehensively demolishes the idea that, for example, young people today are fixated on ephemeral issues, are only interested in having fun and that issues around the cost of living are not important to them. It shows that younger generations are concerned about the health, wellbeing and success of future generations. I am glad that the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act was highlighted. It is a great achievement of the Welsh Government, which ensures that the concerns of future generations are structurally represented in Government.

Some big challenges have been talked about this afternoon including mental health issues. In some cases, sadly, they carry across the generations. The issue of loneliness was rightly mentioned. For young people, social media use often exacerbates loneliness rather than brings people together to combat it. Lonliness is also a big challenge for many older people. Age UK has done wonderful work on this, but says that 1.4 million older people report themselves as often being lonely, which is a terrible statistic for us to reflect on, and surely—hopefully—to act on. It was great to hear about some of the projects combating loneliness in Motherwell. The Clockhouse Project in Blackbird Leys in my constituency also does great work bringing older people together. Clearly, though, we need to do more.

We need to do more across the generations when it comes to mental health, as well. In particular, we need to tackle the crisis in children’s mental health and the currently very long waiting lists for support. We need much higher staffing levels within the NHS, but we also need to ensure that this is integrated with schooling, so that there are specialist mental health professionals at every school. There must be much more open access to mental health care, whether that is for young, middle-aged or older people.

We have to break down barriers to opportunity at every stage. Today, unfortunately, inequality is entrenched across the country. We are seeing inequality that is regional, inequality that is racial, inequality between men and women, and class inequality. Traditionally in the UK, there has been a promise that we can tell our children and grandchildren, “If you work hard, you will be able to get on, no matter what your background is.” That increasingly has not been the case for many people in our society, unfortunately.

Many older people who have worked hard all their lives are in an increasingly difficult situation. The housing crisis was rightly referred to, and clearly that is a huge challenge for many young people, but as the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw rightly said, it is increasingly a challenge for older people, too. Lots of older people are now living in precarious, poor-quality, private rented sector housing. This is the first time that that has been the case for a number of decades, and we really need to be facing up to that.

We must consider all generations when it comes to big challenges such as combating violence in our communities. I pay tribute to the work of Age UK, but I was very concerned to hear that it was Age UK’s hard work that led to Government systematically collecting information about the rates of domestic violence against older people, and that the information had not previously been routinely collected. That is really concerning. It should have been routinely collected, because we need to learn from it to ensure that every older person is safe. Of course, we also need to understand new forms of violence and control. That means having a focus on the kind of online issues that were touched on in this debate.

We need to look at how, ultimately, the different generations are progressing or otherwise. There is a measure of that: income persistence. The UK currently has American-style levels of income persistence which are significantly higher than the OECD average. That means that your parents’ income determines a huge amount of what your income as a young person and subsequent generations’ will be. Other countries are far better at disrupting that persistence. We believe that we have to take action on this and that the Social Mobility Commission should be involved in recording and analysing data on it. We need to do that and to learn from analysis of other sources, such as the longitudinal education outcomes data, so we can ensure much greater intergenerational income mobility.

I feel that I cannot not mention the need to recognise the contribution of every single generation to our society and economy. One generation that I have talked about a lot is people in their 40s, 50s and 60s, particularly women. That group of women does not get talked about very much, and are not represented very much in the media. They do a lot, and though they tend not to complain very much, they are often squeezed at both ends. They provide huge amounts of care as sandwich carers. Many are trying to hold down a job. They are supporting children and often their partners or parents too, both financially and emotionally. Often they are experiencing health problems as well, and some are finding it challenging to manage menopausal symptoms alongside work that is not sufficiently flexible or suitable.

Politics simply has not kept up with the requirements of that generation. It should keep up, because the number of women falling into that generation and moving out of the labour market is very significant. We have calculated that our economy is losing about £7 billion in untapped potential because of those women being forced out of the labour market. Surely we need to do better there. We need to be acting on these issues.

[Kirsty Blackman]

I commend the hon. Member for highlighting that group of women. She is absolutely right: they do not get talked about enough. It is a responsibility of parliamentarians to ensure that we are talking about them, thanking them for their contribution and trying to make life better for them, or at least slightly more bearable than it currently is, so I thank her very much for doing so.

[Anneliese Dodds]

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for what she says. It is important that Parliament is in step with society as well.

We have seen a huge amount of change, with much of the focus on these kinds of issues. We have seen significant positive change across the generations. It is interesting that the amount of childcare undertaken by both parents has changed substantially in recent years, albeit still not the progress we would like. We see it in shared leave, at nursery and school pick-ups, and in time off when the kids are ill or during school holidays. All those things are now viewed as part of the parcel of not just being a mother, but being a parent. None the less, much more progress is still needed.

There has been change over the generations, and, as I say, Parliament and politics really need to catch up on all of that. In doing so, we can work together across generations and learn from each other about what has changed things in a positive direction. That really gets to the root of what Global Intergenerational Week is all about. It was mentioned earlier that more diverse teams tend to have far better outcomes—particularly in business, but it applies everywhere. If we do not include every generation in our decision making, we will not take the right and effective decisions. The work undertaken by those who have been promoting Global Intergenerational Week really underlines that. It also enables us to celebrate the wonderful contribution of all generations—surely we should be doing that too.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Stuart Andrew)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Efford. I start by thanking the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) for securing this debate to mark Global Intergenerational Week, and all those who have contributed to the debate. I put on record my thanks to all the organisations in this country and around the world that have made it a really important week. It has been fantastic to hear about its success this year and the range of inspiring community-led initiatives that have encouraged people of all ages to come together in meaningful ways to build friendships and develop new skills that people probably did not realise they had.

I was struck by the hon. Lady’s comments on housing. My mum has been living in a housing association flat in a complex full of lots of—dare I say—older people, but we have just this month managed to get her into a bungalow on a street full of families; it is a housing association older people’s bungalow, but it is on a street full of families. The difference I saw in my mum in one day, going from that flat to that bungalow, was incredible, so I do think the hon. Lady is right to raise the issue of planning and housing. When I was Housing Minister, it was actually an area of work that I was trying to focus on; unfortunately, politics took over and I left that role, but there you go. I can assure the hon. Lady that we do talk cross-Government about many of these issues, and I will try to highlight some of the work that we are doing.

A number of Members have mentioned conversations and relationships with people from generations other than our own. I am sure that even as we get older, we all remember the advice given by our grandparents, great-aunts and great-uncles, or even the older people who lived down the road. I do not know if it is well known, but I love baking, and I learned some of my skills from people who knew how to bake really well. I have held that knowledge with me, and I look forward to being able to pass it on to the next generation.

As others have rightly mentioned, we know that a substantial number of older people suffer from chronic loneliness, which can lead to both physical and mental health strains—the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw highlighted analysis showing that it is comparable to the smoking of 16 cigarettes a day. A lot of that work has come from the US Surgeon General, who recently spoke at an event in the House of Lords. It was fascinating to listen to the medical evidence on the impact that loneliness can have on people.

Loneliness is not just a problem for older people, as hon. Members have said. We know that young people, particularly those aged between 16 and 24, are often the most likely to report feeling lonely. Evidence shows that transitions in people’s lives often bring about those loneliness moments. That is not surprising. Leaving home for the first time, going to university or starting a new job are instances where a young person can become lonely. That has been a focus of the work that we have been doing in the Department this year—trying to help young people who are going to university for the first time by engaging and interacting with them. We hope we can do some more of that work, and I will refer to that in a moment.

Bringing together the different age groups can be a great way of fostering better social connections. It is essential to building empathy, understanding the issues across the generational divide and dismantling any misplaced stereotypes. As the loneliness Minister, the idea that most resonates with me is the power of intergenerational relationships in combating social isolation and loneliness for all ages, because loneliness does not discriminate. People of all backgrounds can experience loneliness at any time of their life—I know that I have. That is why we are committed to tackling loneliness and ensuring that everyone can benefit from the power of meaningful connections, particularly the most vulnerable people in our society.

Our work to tackle loneliness is driven by the three main objectives set out in the world’s first strategy for tackling loneliness, which was published in 2018. The first is to reduce the stigma of loneliness by building a national conversation. Many people do not want to admit that they have experienced being lonely, or do not know what to do about it. To try to tackle that stigma, the national communications campaign that we run has now reached tens of millions of people since it was started in 2019. It tries to raise awareness about the issue and provides advice on what people can do to help themselves, or indeed help other people who they suspect suffer from loneliness.

The second objective is to try to drive a lasting shift so that relationships and loneliness are considered by organisations right across society. It is a complex issue that can be addressed only in partnership; the Government cannot do it alone. What makes this work so good in this country is the strong partnership with the Government. Many community and local organisations and national charities are helping us to advance that agenda. The Government and our partners have invested £80 million since 2018 on tackling this really important issue.

Last year, we launched the £30-million Know Your Neighbourhood fund to try to create volunteering opportunities to help to reduce loneliness. It supports new and existing schemes in the 27 most disadvantaged areas in the country. Last year, I had the great privilege of visiting one of the projects in Hull, where Age UK, a charity that has been mentioned by Members this afternoon, was creating volunteering opportunities for younger people to befriend older people at risk of becoming lonely. It was brilliant to see intergenerational relationships forming.

Older people who sometimes do not see people from week to week can suddenly have someone who regularly goes round to see how they are, checks on them, gets to know them and makes them feel that they are part of the community in which they live. I also loved the differences in conversations, with one person talking about tech and the other about post-war living. It was fantastic to see.

The final objective of the strategy is to improve the evidence base, which is important so that we can make a compelling case for ongoing action in this area. Our research really helped us to understand the prevalence of the stigma associated with loneliness. As I say, I am very proud to be the Minister for loneliness and to lead the work addressing such an important issue across Government. Like many hon. Members present, I want this country to be a place where we can all have strong social relationships and feel connected to the people we live around.

Global Intergenerational Week is also a good reminder that volunteering can be a great way of supporting intergenerational cohesion, much like the befriending service that I have mentioned. Stakeholders have told us that intergenerational volunteering can be a flexible form of micro-volunteering and can have a number of positive impacts. It can improve cross-generational mental health and wellbeing, and reduce age segregation, which itself can lead to a variety of issues—not just loneliness but anxiety and poor health. It also helps to foster attachment to local areas and provide positive community outcomes, such as community connectedness. We know that there is growing interest in the opportunities that intergenerational work presents, so we want to work with all the organisations that are already doing fantastic work in this area, and to learn more about the positive impacts that it can have and what more we can do to help to foster more of it.

It is also important to mention social cohesion, which we are trying to build by supporting sustainable communities. That is why we have given communities significant support to provide them with the power and resources to shape better and more connected neighbourhoods, and why we are currently delivering the new community wealth fund, which will be important. The idea behind it is to support communities to improve the social infrastructure in neighbourhoods that perhaps do not have that and therefore miss out on all the opportunities for grants and other things that may exist. It also aims to empower local people to make decisions about what they think is best for their community. I am therefore pleased to say that £87.5 million will be allocated to that fund, coming from the expansion of the dormant assets scheme.

When I think about other parts of my portfolio, there is another key way to get intergenerational connectedness happening, and that is through social prescribing. There are real opportunities there for bringing different age groups together. It helps to connect people to the community-based support, including activities and services, that meet the practical, social and emotional needs that affect their health and wellbeing. It can work well for those who are socially isolated or are experiencing low levels of mental health.

One of the themes for this year’s Global Intergenerational Week is building intergenerational workplaces, as the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw mentioned. We want to champion the benefits of such a multigenerational workforce and promote the importance of retaining the skills and experience that older workers have. My colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions are regularly engaging with employers and employer organisations to encourage positive attitudes towards older workers, and to help some of the people who hon. Members mentioned earlier to return to work.

I know that colleagues in DWP have been working with employers that team up workers across generations. One example is a pottery manufacturer in Stoke-on-Trent with a long history of producing high quality products, where traditional methods and modern technology often work together. Of course, both older and younger workers can use the differing technologies, but clearly those with more experience of the traditional methods can pass on their expertise and experience to their colleagues who have joined more recently. I hope that we see more of that work happening in future. We are committed to delivering a comprehensive package of support to help older people to remain in and return to work, and that will include the dedicated 50-plus champions at jobcentres and mid-life MOTs.

Other Members mentioned young people. In my role as Minister with responsibility for youth in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, I have been on some amazing visits around the country, and I think youth centres can help to form important relationships between generations. As the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) mentioned, if young people are disengaged from school—I say this with no disrespect to teachers—that relationship is often different from their relationship with their youth worker, so that mentoring is important. Our hope is to roll out programmes that do more of that, so we are embedding in young people the benefit of having relationships with people from different generations. Hopefully, they will pass that on to the younger generation as they get older.

Other Members mentioned Youth Voice. I always want to have young people around the table when we are talking about issues that affect them, not least because they do it so brilliantly and articulate it in a way that I could not, but also because, as I say to them every time, there is no point in this grey-haired, middle-aged man trying to decide what young people want today. The Youth Parliament and others are great at providing such opportunities.

I am the Sport Minister, and we have a sport strategy to get more people active. I am pleased to see that Sport England is now spending a quarter of a billion on place-based investment. I went to see one such scheme in a leisure centre in Canvey Island, where it was great to see very young people playing with footballs next to older people doing chair exercises. Getting them together was important.

[Kirsty Blackman]

The Minister has made me think about Cruyff courts. I do not know if he knows anything about them—another one is opening in Aberdeen on Monday, and I am massively excited—but in creating them, the Cruyff Foundation pays money towards a football pitch, which has to be beside a community centre or some sort of community building. That means that there is that community intervention and space, and a football pitch that can be used by anyone in the community. It is a truly brilliant initiative, so I encourage him to look at Cruyff court systems.

[Stuart Andrew]

That sounds really exciting. The hon. Lady is absolutely right: I am very proud of the fact that we are investing hundreds of millions of pounds in new sports facilities, but it is about making sure that it is not just the same people using them all the time. How do we get other generations using them? How do we get more women using them? The rise in women’s football has been amazing for us all to see, but the number of facilities that are available, or even appropriate, for women has not been good enough, and that is why we introduced the Lionesses fund. I will certainly look into the project that the hon. Lady mentioned.

This debate has been an important conversation, and I thank the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw and all Members for their contributions on an important and enlightening subject. I agree with the hon. Member for Aberdeen North: it is nice to see these different groups coming together. We are determined to do what we can to see more connected societies, and intergenerational approaches will be an important part of that work. I hope that we can come to realise and value the fact that intergenerational relationships build happier, healthier and more resilient communities.

Post Office Compensation

Kirsty Blackman Excerpts

Monday 18th September 2023 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the SNP spokesperson.

[Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)]

I echo the words of the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones) and the Minister about the campaigners who have fought so hard for justice. I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement and for his conversations with my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) in advance of his announcement. [Interruption.] There have been some travel issues today.

The announcement is a welcome further move, but it cannot return the lost years, reunite families or bring back those who are gone. It is something, but it is not enough. Will those who opt to go through the full assessment process be guaranteed a minimum of £600,000, or will they possibly be offered a lower settlement as a result?

In his answer to the hon. Member for Croydon Central, the Minister mentioned the 60 individuals who have sadly passed away, at least four of whom took their own life as a result of this scandal. Can he give us more clarity on how the compensation offer will apply to those who have died? It was not set out in his statement. Will their families be offered the same £600,000? He sort of mentioned it in one of his answers, but if we could have absolute clarity for those who are watching, it would be incredibly helpful.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her questions and her support for today’s announcement. She is absolutely right: no amount of financial compensation can truly compensate people for what has happened. It is an horrendous set of circumstances and one of the biggest scandals that this nation has ever seen.

The hon. Lady is right, but as I say, it was important that we drew the line somewhere on what the compensation level would be. We looked at the average compensation claims that were coming through for overturned convictions, and we settled on a figure on the generous side of that. We think it is a fair figure, but of course people can still take the other option and go down the full assessment route.

The hon. Lady makes a very good point about whether people who have been awarded less through the full route would get the minimum level. That is something on which we are working with the advisory board. We are very keen to engage with the advisory board; I think it is very important that people who are looking for compensation have the reassurance that the advisory board is in place. Its parliamentary members have been very vocal campaigners on the issue for a long time.

For anybody who had an overturned conviction, but who has passed away: yes, if they had received a lower amount, it would be topped up to £600,000.