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.