Royal Mail: Performance

Tahir Ali Excerpts

Wednesday 21st October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Sorcha Eastwood]

Hear, hear—I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. In all honesty, I was reluctant today to say that Royal Mail was continuing not to engage with me; I felt that it was gaslighting and I was scared to mention that. It did manage to meet some of my colleagues in Northern Ireland at a local level, which I thought was generous. However, this matter is a reserved matter, it does sit within this House, and I think that right hon. and hon. Members, including Front Benchers, have gone an awfully long way to accommodate Royal Mail when, as the hon. Member has just said, its representatives should be presenting themselves in this House, not the other way around.

I want to turn now to the posties. I declare an interest: my stepdad was a postman many years ago in Sheffield, and he has permanent back problems as a result. I think many people underestimate just how difficult a job that was, at any time. But now? I dread to think about the stress and pressure that those posties are under.

[Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)]

Before joining Parliament in 2019, I had 22 years of service with Royal Mail as an engineer, and I can tell the hon. Lady that working conditions were in decline then. We now hear that more than 400 postal workers are leaving the business every week. That is due to workload and working conditions. A two-tier workforce cannot work for any organisation; the workforce need to be rewarded accordingly. Does the hon. Lady agree?

[Sorcha Eastwood]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. I really feel that he has hit upon the crux of the matter here. We are being told that Royal Mail has identified issues that it is now trying to rectify through recruitment and so on, but if people already know that the workers holding up this once-great British institution are being treated in the way that they are, that will not be an advertisement for anybody to work for that organisation. That troubles me.

Our postal workers are not the problem. Our posties are doing their absolute best to hold things together but, as has just been highlighted, they are leaving in their droves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sorcha Eastwood]

I wholeheartedly agree. Royal Mail says quality is improving, believe it or not. To be fair, recent quarterly figures showed a slight pick-up, but it has not met its annual delivery targets in six years. My constituents do not read quarterly reports; they rely on social media to see whether the postie is coming. It is a completely unacceptable situation. We also hear that stamp prices keep going up. Citizens Advice suggested capping stamp prices if delivery targets are not met. It is a simple rule: if you don’t deliver the service, you can’t raise your prices. Will the Government back that plan?

Who is supposed to fix this issue? Ofcom, as we have heard, has fined Royal Mail more than £37 million in three years. If fines changed behaviour, things would be fixed by now. Even Ofcom says that

“persistent failure…may raise…fundamental questions about the long-term provision of the universal service”.

I agree. We are at that point. As the BIST Committee Chair, the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North, put it, the current position

“leaves unanswered who will take responsibility for identifying and closing the gaps in postal regulation”.

Ofcom points to the Government, the Government point at Ofcom and the post sits in the delivery office. The BIST Committee gave Royal Mail and Ofcom until 22 November to show real improvement. If they do not, the Secretary of State should consult on changing Ofcom’s powers.

[Tahir Ali]

Would the hon. Lady agree that Ofcom needs further powers to bring about the change that is necessary, because it is limited in what it can do? For the record, Ms Lewell, I worked at Royal Mail for 30 years, not 22.

[Sorcha Eastwood]

That is a real question that we must seriously investigate. I am sure that other right hon. and hon. Members across the House would attest to wanting further robust mechanisms to challenge many of Ofcom’s other remits successfully. I wonder whether the Minister will commit today to consult on changing Ofcom’s powers.

Finally, I turn to the bigger picture. As we have heard from right hon. and hon. Members in the debate, this issue is about much more than just simply Royal Mail and letters. For the first time in its 500-year history, Royal Mail is owned by an overseas company—the highly profitable EP Group. The Government approved the takeover, but serious questions remain about our sovereignty. Royal Mail is a British institution. It delivers to every address in the UK for the same price, whether to a farm in Northern Ireland, a flat in Cardiff or a college in Scotland. It is as much critical infrastructure as any road or cable. When it was privatised in 2013, we were promised better service and investment. Instead, we have had six years of missed targets. A company unanswerable to its owners will always be tempted to favour its most profitable work. The universal service obligation is meant to guard against that.

Fines have not been enough. Other countries subsidise their postal providers or bring them into public ownership, as Ofcom notes. I go further here than the Committee has, but I believe it is time to review Royal Mail’s ownership and governance, so that the universal service obligation is protected in the public interest.

I ask the House: who do we want to be as a society? Do we want to be a country that can no longer promise that a card will reach a grieving daughter, or a hospital letter will reach a patient? Or do we want to be a country that treats the post as what it has always been—a promise to every address— and protects it?

As I said earlier, this is about more than just letters. What are we as a country, if we can no longer rely upon a service that is nearly as old as time itself? Given current geopolitical instability, it would also be remiss of me not to put on the record the grave concerns that I have about critical national infrastructure being owned overseas, rather than in our own country.

For my final requests, I am asking the Government for four things. First, will the Government consult on changing Ofcom’s powers, if service has not improved by the Committee’s 22 November deadline? Secondly, will the Government consider linking stamp prices to delivery performance, as Citizens Advice has proposed? Thirdly, what guarantees do we have for Christmas deliveries this year? Fourthly, and finally, will the Government review Royal Mail’s ownership model, to protect the universal service for the long term?

The public hold up their end of the bargain: they buy the stamps, post letters in time and wait. The system is letting them down. My constituents want to trust the post again. The Government, Ofcom and Royal Mail all have the power to put that right, and this Christmas is the time to show it.

Single Status of Worker

Tahir Ali Excerpts

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, as ever, Mr Efford. I refer to my declaration of interests on my trade union membership and trade union support in the general election.

The Conservative ethos of unhindered market determination meant that historical antagonism to the trade unions, which are seen as an unholy impediment to the favoured goal of a flexible labour market, intensified as the Tories continued to try to curtail their power. It became the common theme of Governments here and elsewhere—up until, of course, the election of the Labour Government in 2024. The market had to be what determined the wages and conditions of ordinary working individuals, not collective bargaining or negotiations with unions. Management would be totally free to pay what the individual worker is worth. That is worth recognising at the outset.

They reckon that Thatcher’s greatest achievement was not Tony Blair, as she once declared; her most profound legacy was the gig economy. The widespread acceptance of insecure, casual employment is one of the cornerstones of the UK economy. What an absolute disaster. The gig economy was given legal underpinning by the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and the Employment Rights Act 1996, which defined the two levels of employment status: the employee, with full legal and contractual rights, and the worker, who enjoyed only minimal legal protections. The exploitative use of casual labour was basically given legal legitimacy. That was a crime against ordinary working people.

Under those Acts, a worker is said to have a more casual, less structured work pattern—for example, zero-hours contracts. They are usually required to do the work themselves, and cannot ask somebody else to cover for them. They technically do not have to make themselves available to work, but in reality the fear of no further hours being offered if they turn down a request that they work has made this a legal fiction in many cases.

Look at the economic effects of the widespread employment of those legally characterised as workers. It is blatantly obvious that good, long-term jobs have been replaced by low-paid, minimum wage jobs. Many of those who have been forced to work in the large casual work sector require benefits to survive. Employers’ profits are being subsidised by everybody in this room—by the taxpayer. Cheap labour has been a major cause of a lack of investment in capital and in research and development, resulting in poor productivity growth. It is hard for workers to achieve union recognition as they are without unfair dismissal protection, leading to even weaker union density in key industries—again, a key goal of the Conservatives throughout their history.

I would like to share some of the difficulties suffered by individuals employed as workers. Many have been on zero-hours contracts and do not know what money they will earn each month. We understand the problems that brings: they have no job security and can be dismissed without notice, they are not entitled to redundancy pay, and some employers employ a pool of workers who work besides those with employee status, so that there can be mass redundancies and avoid statutory consultations and legal obligations to discuss alternative employment with those affected—they can freely choose those with worker status.

Workers can be wrongly classified as being self-employed—the well-known bogus self-employed—a tactic used to avoid national insurance contributions, stakeholder pension contributions and so on. It is sometimes hard to spot because of legal complexities. If, on paper, somebody hired to work can choose somebody else to do that work for them, the so-called substitution clause means that that individual will legally be given self-employed status and have no employment rights whatsoever. It is often hard to prove the false nature of the written clause, but in reality, it is well known that no one in the firm would dare to rely on these clauses for, say, an extra day off.

[Tahir Ali (Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an important point about the exploitation of workers with very little legal protection. Does he agree that it must be incumbent on all employees to have union recognition, whereby the voices of employees, no matter how small the organisation, are heard and can be part of any action that can be taken against rogue employers? There are some very good employers that recognise unions and work with them to achieve the best, but many do not recognise unions and would rather have working conditions that take us back more than 100 years, before the work of trade unions had even started.

[Ian Lavery]

I fully agree with the sentiments outlined by my hon. Friend.

I will move on to a summary of the legal rights denied to people classified as workers under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and the Employment Rights Act 1996: protection against unfair dismissal after six months; the right to guaranteed hours; the right to maternity pay; the right to paternity leave; protection against unfair redundancy selection; the right to redundancy pay; access to statutory union recognition procedures; and the ability to request family-friendly flexible hours. Those are the rights that are being denied to workers at this moment in time.

What are we really asking for? There must be a renewed push for the full implementation of Labour’s manifesto commitment to merge the employed and worker tiers into one single legal category of employee with full legal employment rights. We need an end to the bogus self-employment tactics that unscrupulous employers deploy. The law should not recognise the legitimacy of any substitution clause.

The best means of achieving a clear distinction between a new employee with single status and those who are actually self-employed is to use the formula proposed in Lord Hendy’s single status Bill of 2023-24, which was introduced in the Lords. That would not only merge employees and workers into a single status of employee; legal employment rights would also end the bogus self-employment tactics that employers use to deny people the higher employee status. Under Lord Hendy’s Bill, a person would be deemed to be self-employed only if there was clear evidence that he or she was genuinely operating a business on his or her own account. Evidence such as business accounts, advertising and the number of clients or customers would be needed to prove true engagement for services by a self-employed person.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) for bringing this timely debate to the House. I also thank the Minister for her sterling work on the employment Bill. It was an excellent Bill. It could be a lot better; it could be a lot stronger—to be honest, we need an employment Bill 2.

Arms Export Licences: Israel

Tahir Ali Excerpts

Tuesday 12th December 2023 Westminster Hall

[Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) for securing this debate. The Palestinian human rights organisation Al-Haq, alongside the Global Legal Action Network, has recently applied for a judicial review of the Government’s export licences for the sale of British weapons to Israel. According to those organisations, since 2015 the value of British arms exports to Israel, as part of the standard licence grants, stands at around £474 million, with 58 open licences for the arms trade with Israel.

Existing criteria for assessing the suitability of arms exports states that where there is a clear risk that any weapon may be used in violation of international humanitarian law, no licence should be granted. It is abundantly clear to me and many others—hundreds of thousands of people across the UK—that there is more than a clear risk that Israel is using the weapons provided by the UK to commit atrocious crimes against the Palestinian people. Many people in this country and around the world suggest, and I agree, that it is both clear and certain that Israel is using weapons to commit war crimes against Palestinian civilians, and that the UK, in providing such weapons, is complicit.

It should bring shame on us all that our Government, in providing arms, have been complicit in such horrendous acts of violence and cruelty. Therefore I am here to echo the demands of my constituents that Israel should receive no weapons or arms of any kind from the UK Government, and that the Government should act to stop the conflict and work to restart the peace process now.

[Richard Foord]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tahir Ali]

No, I will not—many other Members are still waiting to speak. Could the sale of arms be a condition from Israel for the UK Government abstaining at the Security Council? Could the sale of arms be a condition from Israel for this Government not recognising Palestine as a state? Could the sale of arms be a condition from Israel for not demanding a ceasefire? Can the Minister explain?

Oral Answers to Questions

Tahir Ali Excerpts

Wednesday 8th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

For the final question, I call Tahir Ali.

[Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)]

Q15. On International Women’s Day, it is vital that we talk about women in Indian-occupied Kashmir being subjected to rape, domestic abuse, kidnapping, forced marriage and torture by Prime Minister Modi’s extremist BJP-led Government. Does the Prime Minister agree that the BJP Government have exploited women through gender-based violence? Does he agree that the UK Government should be standing in solidarity with Kashmiri women?

[The Prime Minister]

This Government have a proud record of standing up for women and girls across the world. We have led the way in preventing sexual violence in conflict, and are taking a lead on ensuring that tens of millions of girls in some of the poorest parts of the world receive the high-quality education that they deserve. Just today, we have announced a new women and girls strategy from the Foreign Office and backed that up with £200 million more to support women’s health around the world. That continues our leadership on this issue, which will remain the case.

Bill Presented

Data Protection and Digital Information (No. 2) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Secretary Michelle Donelan, supported by Secretary Suella Braverman, Secretary Steve Barclay, Secretary Kemi Badenoch, George Freeman, Julia Lopez, Paul Scully and Alex Burghart, presented a Bill to make provision for the regulation of the processing of information relating to identified or identifiable living individuals; to make provision about services consisting of the use of information to ascertain and verify facts about individuals; to make provision about access to customer data and business data; to make provision about privacy and electronic communications; to make provision about services for the provision of electronic signatures, electronic seals and other trust services; to make provision about the disclosure of information to improve public service delivery; to make provision for the implementation of agreements on sharing information for law enforcement purposes; to make provision about the keeping and maintenance of registers of births and deaths; to make provision about information standards for health and social care; to establish the Information Commission; to make provision about oversight of biometric data; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 265) with explanatory notes (Bill 265-EN).