Royal Mail: Performance

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

In 1884, parts of London would receive up to seven deliveries per day. By 1879, that had increased to 12 daily deliveries—can Members imagine? Today, in some parts of Sutton and Cheam or Worcester Park, we are lucky to see one delivery a week. That is 150 years of progress.

[Ian Byrne]

On the issue of dates, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the blame starts in 2013, when the coalition Government disastrously privatised this national treasure? Does he agree that Royal Mail needs to be taken back into public ownership?

[Luke Taylor]

I agree primarily with the point made by the hon. Member for Alloa and Grangemouth (Brian Leishman), who listed promises made by the Prime Minister. I would like to see the Prime Minister held to account a little more for his promises, which are undelivered—just like the mail in Sutton and Cheam.

Sutton residents in SM1, SM2 and SM3 cannot rely on the post any more. When Royal Mail fails to do its job properly, everyday people are left dealing with the fallout: prescriptions do not turn up, hospital letters land after the appointment has passed, Mother’s day cards arrive when the moment has gone and parking fines arrive after the grace period has expired.

However, the plural of anecdote is not data, so when I saw that this debate had been scheduled, I decided to get my own. Last Wednesday I sent out a batch of first-class letters from my constituency. In the letter I asked people to tell me when their delivery turned up and how long it had taken. The results: out of 23 replies so far, only 15 arrived the next working day, five took two days, and three took three days or more to arrive, with the latest arriving this morning. Yes, that is a small sample size—my credentials as an engineer will not let me fail to mention that—but Royal Mail’s target to have 93% of first-class mail arrive the next day was failed catastrophically, with my experiment placing its success rate closer to 65%.

When someone pays for first class, they are not making a complicated request: next-day delivery—that is the promise. Royal Mail may be a private company, but it delivers a public service, which is supposed to be overseen by Ofcom. A private company failing to deliver the public services it is mandated to do and getting away with it because of rubbish regulators—that covers at least 50% of the speeches delivered in this Chamber. It feels so familiar to me, having done it over and over. The Government are further eroding the confidence of our public by not showing improvements in any of these services.

Let me conclude with some questions for the Minister. Local elections are approaching in May, and the Government know that many people rely on postal votes to express their democratic right. The Minister has only to look across the Atlantic for recent experience of the undermining of faith in the electoral system when there is a lack of confidence that ballots will arrive on time and be counted. What assessment has been made of the impact of delays on local elections? What plans do the Government have to require Royal Mail to remove the shackles on local delivery offices to help them to clear rounds at this critical time? Will the Minister give a read-out of what firm actions and conclusions were agreed in his meeting with Ofcom last Wednesday, after his statement in the Chamber last week?

--- Later in debate ---

[Blair McDougall]

I will happily look at that. It is another example of a service that is simply not good enough.

As was mentioned, I recently met Royal Mail’s chief executive to press these issues directly. He was left in no doubt about the level of anger and concern across the House, and he was clear that the service is not where he wants it to be. He gave me a firm commitment that he will work towards restoring confidence in the service.

Where service has fallen short locally, whether due to staffing pressures, which the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) mentioned, operational challenges or external disruption, customers need to see sustained and structural improvement, not just short-term fixes. I understand that the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East has met Royal Mail to discuss these issues. I have been advised that there are currently three vacancies in the Exmouth office, and I expect that Royal Mail will fill them to ensure there is an improvement in service locally.

Across the country, our constituents deserve visible improvements in reliability, and that expectation underpins every discussion that I and other Ministers have with Royal Mail. That is why, before the takeover of Royal Mail, we secured significant commitments from the new owners of the business, including a commitment to prevent dividend payments until quality of service improves.

As many hon. Members said, service improvement is also intimately linked to workers’ terms and conditions and the reform of Royal Mail’s operation. It is critical that the Royal Mail workers are on board with the operational changes, and that their experience informs that work. The Government continue to engage with EP Group on that; that is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State convened a joint meeting with the owners of EP Group and the CWU last month to help to unblock the outstanding issues. That engagement continues.

Hon. Members also referred to my detailed discussion with Ofcom last week about its expectations of Royal Mail and the steps it is taking to protect consumers. I highlighted hon. Members’ significant concerns about the delivery performance and the negative real-world impact that that is having on our constituents. It is fair to say that Ofcom has heard the strength of concerns, particularly those expressed in the Chamber last week. One outcome of that meeting is that Ofcom is clear, as it has been for some time, that Royal Mail is required to publish a detailed improvement plan that results in significant and continuous progress, and that it expects that one should appear within days of an agreement with the union. Where failures continue, Ofcom will not hesitate to act again, and last year’s £21 million fine was a clear signal.

We are in a context where, as has been said, the performance of many other parcel providers makes Royal Mail’s performance look positively glowing, and Ofcom is also looking at that wider context. None of us is blind to the wider context and the structural pressures. Letter volumes have halved over the past decade. As hon. Members have said, to ensure that the USO is sustainable, Ofcom has made changes to Royal Mail’s obligations.

However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough and Thornaby East (Andy McDonald) made clear, those changes and reforms cannot be imposed from the top down. Royal Mail must work constructively with its workforce and unions to ensure that operational changes translate into better services for customers across the country—a point also made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), and my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) and for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker).

There is wisdom in every sorting office; staff there understand how the business works. We have taken a close interest in the negotiations, the new operating model and workers’ conditions. I mentioned that the Secretary of State recently met with EP Group and the CWU; a further meeting is scheduled for tomorrow. I am hopeful that Royal Mail’s owners and the union will work together in the interests of Royal Mail’s employees, its customers and the business.

Several hon. Members raised concerns about the impact on postal votes. We have sought strong reassurances from Royal Mail on that issue. There have been meetings with the chief executive of the Electoral Commission to discuss plans for the upcoming elections, and a similar meeting is taking place in Scotland with Ministers there. My hon. Friend the Minister for Building Safety, Fire and Democracy is having a further meeting with Royal Mail to discuss postal votes, and we are leaving Royal Mail in no doubt about our expectations in that space.

[Luke Taylor]

It is encouraging to hear that the Government have sought reassurances, but nothing short of a fundamental revolution in my local delivery office will see postal votes delivered even within the weekend on which they are expected to arrive. Can the Minister detail what those reassurances involve? Do they require additional resource to be provided to the delivery offices so that they can pay for the inevitable overtime or additional staff on those dates? Similarly, when the postal votes need to get back to our town halls, what will be done to make sure that that end of the process also happens over a period of three or four weeks?

[Blair McDougall]

Obviously, part of ensuring that the obligations around postal votes are maintained is making sure that the resource is there on the ground to do that. Another part of it is also the prioritisation of postal votes within the service. There are existing structures for that, such as doing sweeps of boxes. I reiterate that the Government will continue to hold Royal Mail to account, will support strong and independent regulation by Ofcom and will press urgently for the improvements that customers rightly expect to see.

Royal Mail: Universal Service Obligation

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Blair McDougall]

My hon. Friend has been a constant campaigner and is constantly in my ear on these issues on behalf of his constituents. As I said, I will be talking to Ofcom later today about its role in this matter, and I will keep him updated on that.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

Residents across my constituency, particularly those in the SM1, SM2 and SM3 postcodes, have been reporting issues with their deliveries for years. Local social media is full of people reporting one-day-a-week deliveries and asking which other roads that is occurring on. I have visited my delivery office for the last two Christmases, meeting hard-working posties who have been let down by the system. Let me give a particular shout-out to Timmy, who has been delivering to my road for decades and is approaching retirement—my congratulations to him. Will the Minister add Sutton to the list for his agenda this afternoon? Can he also report back next Wednesday in the Westminster Hall debate, which I imagine he will be coming to, with clear actions from his meeting this afternoon?

[Blair McDougall]

I pay tribute to Timmy and thank him for his years of service. It is exactly because this service is full of people like him who are passionate about their jobs that we need to ensure that Royal Mail’s quality of service is reformed and improved.

Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker. You will have to forgive me for dancing around to aid my pained back.

“Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

That quote from 1887 is of the British historian Lord Acton, and its explains how power in its most essential form inevitably corrupts. Today we are discussing how that absolute power, that feeling of invincibility, has led to the behaviour that Members across the Chamber are all so utterly disgusted by.

I speak on behalf of all residents who have been in touch with me over the last few weeks, whether they are a republican, a monarchist or ambivalent to the general principle. We see a scandal that is not just engulfing Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, but dragging in the integrity of the wider royal family. As was said correctly by the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion (Siân Berry), we must ask who knew what and when. What was known about the £12 million that was paid out to Virginia Giuffre in 2022, and how was that allowed to be used to settle a civil suit concerning allegations of Andrew’s alleged offences? How was that allowed to happen in the first place?

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) has said, we have seen one friend of Epstein lobbying for a job for another friend of Epstein, and a 12-year relationship that benefited them both financially, which has resulted in two arrests for misconduct in public office. This Humble Address refers to how that began, and it is absolutely the right place to start. As a politician, trying to convince the public that we are here to serve and represent them, that the conspiracies they read in the darker reaches of the internet are nonsense, and that there is no elite paedophile ring that runs the world’s institutions becomes increasingly difficult when we see links in the files that go directly from the Kremlin to the White House and everywhere in between, including the British royal family.

We talk about standards in public life and integrity, but that is difficult to maintain if such things are known about and the information in the files is understood by the public but we are then unable to scrutinise it or to bring people to this place to ask questions about what has happened. As discussed, the Humble Address covers quite a narrow set of papers about Andrew’s appointment as the special representative for UK trade and industry. However, we have also discussed the parliamentary gymnastics required to get a discussion in the Chamber about the outrageous misdeeds allegedly conducted by that man. We have to call out those parliamentary gymnastics as an outrageous impediment to our performing our job as MPs and we need to dispel them from this place entirely.

We have talked about the implications of Andrew’s position in the line of succession. When the photos of him walking in New York with Jeffrey Epstein were taken in 2011, he was fourth in line to the throne. When that scandal was occurring, he was very close to the throne—it is disgusting. Will the Minister give us an update on legislation that the Government might bring forward to remove Andrew from the line of succession? Andrew is eighth in line now, meaning his position may not be such a worry, but the principle of his being in the line of succession to become our Head of State is obnoxious in the extreme, so I would like to hear an update from the Minister about that.

[Layla Moran]

People understand that we have a living, breathing, constitutional democracy that grows as society better understands things. If the King does not want Andrew to be a prince, it makes no sense that we still have to bring in legislation to strip him of his dukedom and his earldoms, or that he remains in the line of succession and could potentially be King. There are plenty of other things that we need to be getting on with, but there is a certain logic in this instance that just needs tidying up, if nothing else.

[Luke Taylor]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend.

I thank the Minister for his early acknowledgment of support for the Humble Address. He has engaged constructively with comments about its scope and exactly what it says. I thank him for his supportive attitude, as there has been across the Chamber.

To return to the point about negative privilege and the fact that we cannot speak freely and have had to use a gymnastic approach to get to the point where we are today, I have submitted a number of requests for urgent questions to the Speaker’s office, which completely understandably has not managed to justify a discussion of the scandal as it has unfolded. By necessity, we have had to phrase the motion as an examination of the prince’s arrangements and his use of property, and there have been all sorts of confusing attempts not to discuss certain matters, which, as has been mentioned, have precluded us from doing so.

[Chris Bryant]

I hate to add to the hon. Gentleman’s anguish, but there is a convention in the House that we do not refer to requests for urgent questions that have been made to the Speaker.

[Luke Taylor]

I apologise for breaking that convention, but it is a useful demonstration that, however right the Speaker is in acting with such utter wisdom that we will never question, it remains a challenge to raise issues like this one in the Chamber.

During the debate, Liberal Democrat Members have been clear that we have to have a full statutory inquiry into the whole Epstein affair and the tentacles that it has inserted into our public life. We must allow the criminal investigations to be completed, but the inquiry must be able to compel witnesses to appear, require them to give evidence under oath, and produce documents and other evidence. The inquiry must be used to punish those who have been complicit and have been involved in the heinous crimes we have heard about in the media. To echo the comments made by other hon. Members, the media and journalists have done incredible work investigating the crimes and poring over the files, and their effort cannot be overstated.

To conclude, we have to ensure that the events that have transpired over the last 20 or 30 years as part of the Epstein scandal can never be repeated. The investigation must allow us to fireproof our constitution from similar events ever happening again.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ben Maguire]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that powerful point. That is a really important consideration; I hope that the Minister listened and can respond to it.

These concerns naturally lead to further questions. What did those around Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor know? What did police protection officers, civil servants and officials who accompanied him, travelled with him and were present during official duties observe? What did they record? What did they raise? Crucially, what was dismissed and what was ignored? These are not trivial matters; they speak directly to how an individual in public office was able to behave in ways that would never be tolerated from anyone else and how the institutions around him seemingly completely failed to act.

[Luke Taylor]

Does the point about what the protection officers knew not show the outrageous power imbalance between a royal and an employee? We are talking about whistleblowing and reporting what has been seen. Is the prospect of having somebody in that situation—whereby they are being held to account for not calling out the behaviour of someone whose privilege and birthright have put them into such a position—not outrageous? Does my hon. Friend agree that this shows how the structure of our constitution has put us into such an outrageous twist and how difficult it will be to unwind that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lisa Smart]

I wholly agree with my hon. Friend, who has made a number of powerful interventions throughout this debate. This whole sorry saga repeatedly brings up arrogant, greedy men—mostly men—who have sought to enrich themselves further and increase their power.

[Luke Taylor]

I hope this intervention adds to my hon. Friend’s point. Does she find it ironic that the only person who has been imprisoned as part of the Epstein scandal is a woman?

[Lisa Smart]

My hon. Friend is not the only person to refer to structural sexism in this debate. In particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) made an extremely powerful speech about how, should we choose to do so as a Parliament, we could embed looking at sexism—at violence against women and girls—in our policymaking and our thinking in a way that would benefit the whole of society. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) for raising the point that there remain many people who the hand of justice is yet to seek out with the full vigour it should.

We should be pulling back the curtain on Andrew’s use of the special envoy role and the whole system around him, on the power he had in an official, state-sanctioned position, and on the many missed opportunities for scrutiny and accountability, not least in this place. A number of Members from both sides of the House have talked about the importance of pace and speed; the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Matt Bishop) made a very good point about making sure we get on with some of this work, which he also raised yesterday with the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister; and the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), reminded us that the wheels of justice often grind slowly. My deputy leader and hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper) presented some practical solutions for how we can make sure progress continues at pace, so that one thing does not hold up another, and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), reminded us that police involvement in this matter should not unduly delay the whole process. Of course, it is vital that the police should be free to do their job and do it well, but that should not unduly hold up the release of the information we are seeking.

We Liberal Democrats very much welcome support from across the Chamber for our motion, including from Members on the Treasury Bench. When the Minister winds up in a few moments, I would be grateful if he confirmed—like when the Government responded to the previous Humble Address that we discussed in this place—that any information will be released when it is available, only holding back that information that is directly relevant to a police investigation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I hear the points that my hon. Friend makes, and of course I sympathise with them. However, it is remarkably difficult to disentangle some of those from possible offences on which prosecutions may be brought, so I am somewhat cautious in this area, as she will hear. She will know that I can sometimes be as vociferous as her on these issues, but at this particular moment I want to be cautious.

I want to talk about the issue of negative privilege, which several Members have mentioned. I fully understand the point, which I myself made back in 2011, when I had a bit of a row with Speaker Bercow about it. I fully understand the point that Members have made, and I do not think we should have excessive deference. Of course, it is a matter for the House, for Mr Speaker and the Deputy Speakers, and for the Procedure Committee and others, whether we want to change the accepted conventions of the House. It is a Back-Bench Committee, and if Members want to take such issues to the Procedure Committee, they should do so.

However, I do not think we should overstate the case, because if at any point any of the political parties had wanted to bring a substantive motion to the House, whether in opposition or in government, anybody would have been able to do so, but the truth of the matter is that all of us chose not to. Whether that is because of deference, I cannot judge, but it is certainly true that using a substantive motion is available to us to consider such matters.

[Luke Taylor]

rose—

[Layla Moran]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I will continue for a moment, if the hon. Members do not mind.

We do enjoy freedom of speech in this House, and it is precious. As hon. Members will know, article 8 of the Bill of Rights says that no proceeding in Parliament shall be impeached in any court of law or any other place, which means we can say things here without the threat of being prosecuted anywhere else. It is a really important and precious privilege, and one that we must guard carefully, which is why we have a sub judice rule. Mr Speaker has decided that the rule does not apply to today’s debate, because no charges have yet been brought—when the sub judice rule applies is quite specific.

I do think that we need to guard that privilege quite carefully, because we have a separation of powers. We do not think that we should have Acts of attainder, with the House deciding by a Bill that somebody is guilty of some crime or other. That is a matter for the prosecuting authorities, and the person is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

I think the hon. Gentleman with a bad back wanted to intervene.

[Luke Taylor]

I thank the Minister—I am not sure whether I do thank him—but I want to push back gently on that, and I would be interested in his response. Does not the fact that we have had 15 years since Andrew resigned in disgrace and it did not come before Parliament demonstrate that there is such a reluctance, or is it a true misunderstanding of process that that did not come before the House for us to discuss and really get into the weeds of the matter? Does he not see that as demonstrating the need for a change in the process, or at least an acknowledgment that we need to be digging deeper into these issues?

[Chris Bryant]

Well, yes, and I also think that the truth of the matter is that we probably need more Paul Flynns. I have always been a bit sceptical about independent MPs, but I have always been very much in favour of independently minded MPs, who are one of the backbones that really allow Parliament to function effectively. I love the Whips—of course I love the Whips—but there is a but.

I will give way to the hon. Lady, and then I really do want to finish my remarks.

Paternity Leave and Pay

Luke Taylor Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2024 Westminster Hall

[James MacCleary (Lewes) (LD)]

I am the father of two young children, and I would not have missed their first months for anything in the whole world. I am proud to have been recently appointed chair of the all-party parliamentary group for childcare and early education, so I have a big interest in this issue and am keen to work with all parties on it.

I thank the hon. Member for Telford (Shaun Davies) for bringing forward this important issue. I hope the lack of turnout of Opposition Members is not a reflection of their lack of interest in this very interesting subject.

When I speak to other parents at the school gates and elsewhere, I am often told of their difficulties accessing paternity leave and therefore sharing parenting equally. With nursery costs spiralling and the wider cost of living crisis, it is time for better paternity pay, and it should be increased to 90% of a father’s salary as soon as possible, so fathers and parents have options.

Development in early years is irreplaceable for children. They say it takes a village to raise a child, but in this country, we do not even seem to support two people raising one. Let us increase paternity pay, introduce a dad’s month and widen eligibility for paternity pay. I hope the Government will work on a cross-party basis—I think they have already outlined that they will—to take action.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the omission of the self-employed from eligibility for paternity pay, which rules out a large number of our constituents, is a major issue that needs to be addressed? Hopefully, we can encourage the Government to come forward with schemes to fill that gap.

[James MacCleary]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that critical point for the self-employed, who often find themselves excluded. A lot of parents, including very good friends of mine, run their own businesses and have found it very hard to access paternity pay.

This is a critical equality and fairness issue, and I am really pleased that we are talking about it because it is very important to me. I am happy to work collaboratively with Members from across the House to improve paternity pay.